Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

Summer Time

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household: The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Summer Time Order 19S0 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

Dundee Port Authority Order Confirmation Bill

Considered; to be read a Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

British Railways

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Minister of Transport when next he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss future investment.

Mr. Adley: asked the Minister of Transport when he will next discuss with the chairman of British Railways the future financing of British Railways.

Mr. Hooley: asked the Minister of Transport when next he plans to meet the chairman of British Railways to discuss future investment.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): Next Monday.

Mr. Ross: When the Minister meets Sir Peter Parker, will he be able to offer

him some financial assistance to speed up the railways' electrification programme and to bring new vehicles into use so that the railways can play, as stated in Sir Peter's statement today, a ready and relevant role when the economy finally recovers?

Mr. Fowler: We are awaiting the final report on electrification, which I expect to receive during the autumn. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are devoting a great deal of public money to British Rail. We are spending £ 575 million on passenger support. The hon. Gentleman will recognise the amount of commitment by the Government to the railway system.

Mr. Adley: I support the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross). Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a difference in terms of public investment between putting money into British Leyland or British Steel, which are manufacturing, goods, and supporting British Rail, which is part of our national transport infrastructure? If we are, as we do, to ask British Rail whether it makes profits or losses overall or on individual routes, is it not odd that we never seem to ask ourselves how much profit or loss is made on the Ml or the M6?

Mr. Fowler: The comparison between road and rail is a matter on which we are trying to make progress. I remind my hon. Friend that we are making available up to £ 277 million in investment, the same as the last Government's ceiling.

Mr. Hooley: Is the Minister aware that the appalling service between Sheffield and London is not likely to be improved unless there is substantial electrification or the right hon. Gentleman allows British Rail to spend money on HS125 sets which would give a decent service?

Mr. Fowler: I shall mention that matter to the chairman of British Rail. I know that he has taken the point made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McCrindle: Has the Minister seen the advertisement by British Rail implying that the M25 should be scrapped so enabling the cost of a number of advanced passenger trains to be met? Will he accept that my commuter constituents, who pay dearly in fares and


taxes to sustain British Rail and who are looking forward to the completion of the M25, consider that public money should not be spent in this manner to oppose what is, after all, Government policy?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I do not think that that is a particularly distinguished piece of advertising by British Rail and I do not think that there is any justification for these expensive and barren knocking matches between road and rail.

Mr. Bagier: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree on reflection that he made a bad mistake in using the occasion of closing a debate to announce an important investment project and "privatisation" plans for the ports? Will he take note of Sir Peter Parker's comments in an interview yesterday, when he said that if there is to be investment in the various sections of British Rail's subsidiaries, it should be done in a fragmented way and not in a block, in order to leave control with British Rail? Does the Minister agree with that statement, and will he pursue it with Sir Peter Parker?

Mr. Fowler: I know that the hon. Member realises that the chairman of British Rail has nothing to do with the British Transport Docks Board. Certainly, I do not believe that I was mistaken in any way in making that announcement on Monday evening. On the question of the attitude of the chairman of British Rail, I am sure that the hon. Member has seen Sir Peter Parker's letter in The Daily Telegraph two days ago in which he said that the move to introduce private capital into the capital-hungry subsidiaries was welcomed by the British Railways Board. I hope that the hon. Member will note that welcome.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Further to the answer that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle), will he confirm that the completion of the M25 remains the top priority for this Government, as it was for the previous one? Will he instruct British Rail not to place advertisements in publications calling into question either the wisdom or the cost of the scheme?

Mr. Fowler: I am not in the business of instructing British Rail but I am sure that the chairman has seen the anger that that advertisement has caused. I can confirm the view of both sides of the House that the M25 is the number one road priority in this country.

Mr. Prescott: The Minister will have seen the statement by Sir Peter Parker that the industry has lost nearly £ 30 million due to the recession. At the meeting next Monday will he give Sir Peter an indication that he is prepared to allow him to use the surpluses on his external financing limit, built up over the last four years, or will he accept the conclusions of the Riley committee, which will increase the borrowing possibilities for British Rail in line with the EEC rail systems?

Mr. Fowler: We shall certainly talk about the flexibility in external finance limits. I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that most of that loss on British Rail was in the freight area and a great deal of that loss was a direct result of the steel strike. It was one more unfortunate effect of that strike.

Advanced Passenger Train (Euston-Glasgow)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the introduction of the advanced passenger train on the Euston-Glasgow central route.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Two advanced passenger train prototypes will enter regular service between London and Glasgow on 6 October, and a third one will follow in the new year. My right hon. Friend has recently received proposals from the board to carry the APT project forward, and we are now considering these.

Mr. Dempsey: Is the Minister aware that this news will be warmly welcomed by the people in the West of Scotland, particularly, as the introduction of this advanced passenger train has been postponed time after time? Will the Minister do his utmost to secure that this date of 6 October will definitely be honoured?

Mr. Clarke: There is no reason to doubt that that date will be honoured. This is a very interesting and encouraging technical development by British Rail.

Mr. Robert Atkins: May I, as a Member for a constituency through which the APT will pass in due course, welcome the Minister's words and ask gently whether the standard of catering on the APT will be a little bit better than it is on the present service?

Mr. Clarke: I hope that the APT will pass through a lot of constituencies between London and Glasgow. We all appreciate that there is room for improvement in the standards of British Rail catering but British Rail has that aspect of its services very much in mind. Indeed, a recent appointment was made to the board of someone with expertise in the catering field.

Dr. M. S. Miller: Will the Minister give us a little more information on the proposals? When he says that there will be two APTs does he mean two in each direction or one in each direction?

Mr. Clarke: There will be two prototype sets in service and a third is planned. The details of the timetable and the service are entirely matters for British Rail.

Motorway Service Areas

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to announce his decisions with regard to the leases of the 38 motorway service areas currently on offer to interested operators.

Mr. Fowler: My agents, Richard Ellis, are continuing their negotiations with the existing operators and other interested parties for disposal of the motorway service areas on new long leases. I shall announce the results of those negotiations as soon as they are concluded.

Mr. Hunt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be widespread disappointment if these leases go to the same dreary lot who operate our motorway service areas at present? Will he seek to ensure that at least some of the leases go to operators in France, Germany and Italy who run their motorway service areas with such flair and imagination, so that the British motorist can discover what he has been missing all these years?

Mr. Fowler: I take on board what my hon. Friend has said. I must point out

that we seek to change policy in this area because of what we regard as the failure of the operation over the last 20 years. We are trying to open up the motorway service areas to new competition with the aim of getting a better service.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: Will the Minister tell some of these private enterprise sharks who operate the service areas that they should not charge 20p a gallon more for petrol than the prices in the city areas?

Mr. Fowler: The previous Government made £ 2 million of taxpayers' money available for the support of petrol prices on motorway service areas. We do not believe that that is the right use of public money, given all the restraints that exist at present. There is competition, there will be further competition and that is the way to proceed.

Mr. Waller: Does my right hon. Friend hope to find operators to take out leases on those sites for motorway service areas that have not yet been allocated? What chance is there of ending the current situation where, on some motorways, such as the M62 between Leeds and Hull, there is no motorway service area for about 80 miles?

Mr. Fowler: We hope to improve the spread of motorway service areas and that is one of our policy aims.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Minister say what effective surveillance he will put into operation when the new contracts come into being to ensure that the disgrace to which the hon. Member for Ravensbourne (Mr. Hunt) referred, is not repeated? Will he take steps to ensure that contracts which are breached in the way that he has described are terminated immediately?

Mr. Fowler: We do not intend to do what the last Government proposed and have catering inspectors going around tasting fish and chips in various motorway service areas. That was absurd. Instead we intend to improve the competition on motorway service areas and to enable, for the first time, the operators of such service areas to advertise their names on the motorway. It will be up to the common sense of the public to choose between the services.

Road Construction Units

Mr. Dormand: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the reorganisation of the road construction units.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We hope to be in a position to put firm proposals to the main organisations and individual county councils during September.

Mr. Dormand: Does the Minister accept that there is a four-year agreement between his Department and Durham county council for the rundown of the Durham unit? That agreement should be honoured. The very least that should be done is that the Durham sub-unit should be allowed to complete its outstanding projects. Is it not a fact that the work must be done anyway, and that means employing consultants whose costs are at least 15 per cent. greater than those of the sub-unit? In view of the highly efficient and dedicated work that has been done by the sub-unit is not this another doctrinaire blow wielded by the Government?

Mr. Clarke: First, we have agreements with the participating county councils and we hope to reach agreement with them in September about the rate at which the sub-units work is changed. We realise that that must not be done precipitately. On the other hand, we do not wish to extend the present uncertainties which have had such a damaging and demoralising effect upon staff. Comparison of costs is a matter which we shall consider carefully but they are difficult to calculate. There are a number of other considerations to be borne in mind when deciding how best to manage the road programme in the most efficient way during the next few years.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that his Department's decision is an excellent one and will be welcomed by the majority of people? On the other hand, is he aware that there is anxiety felt by many of those affected, some of whom have spent many years in those units? In those circumstances, will my hon. and learned Friend give careful consideration to the many representations that have been made on their behalf?

Mr. Clarke: I accept what my hon. Friend says. We are, however, not reducing the amount of work to be done on the road programme. We are simply reorganising the way in which it is done. We are particularly concerned at present about making the best possible arrangements for staff, not only in the interests of good industrial relations and of being a good employer, but also because it is in everybody's interests that we retain their acquired skills on particular schemes, and that we achieve as smooth a transition as possible from sub-units to consultants.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Will the Minister give an assurance that his doctrinaire approach will not delay the building of the Newcastle upon Tyne western bypass which should, if anything, be brought forward?

Mr. Clarke: Our approach is not doctrinaire. As I have tried to indicate, we are consulting carefully and we expect to achieve a smooth transition and a more sensible way of running a reduced road programme. There is no way in which the changeover from sub-units to consultants need delay any road scheme.

Mr. Neale: Is the Minister aware that in Cornwall there are problems in that there is an absence of design engineers and the local county council has been carrying out participative work with the road construction unit on a number of schemes? May I ask my hon. and learned Friend to look carefully at that continuing participation?

Mr. Clarke: We have asked county councils to put special cases to us, where they believe they exist, for work to be transferred to them. Obviously, we also realise: that county councils are hoping to reduce staffing levels. There is no reason to transfer to another section of the public sector work which can probably be done more efficiently in the private sector by consultants.

Mr. Booth: Does the Minister agree that there are considerable problems in transferring existing road schemes from the road construction units to private consultants? What delays in the completion of these schemes does the Minister foresee arising from the transfer? Can he still give a categoric assurance that there will be no slippage in current road


programmes? How will the Minister finance the additional 15 per cent. cost in transferring the work to private consultants? That cost was indicated by the NEDO report.

Mr. Clarke: The NEDO report did not produce an absolute figure of 15 per cent. It is extremely difficult to make direct cost comparisons. The advantage to be achieved by going over to private consultants is greater flexibility in the use of manpower on particular schemes in particular parts of the country, as well as giving a valuable home base for the export earnings which our consulting civil engineers can earn. There is no reason why the process of change should delay any scheme.

Public Transport (Smoking)

Mr. Higgins: asked the Minister of Transport if he will take steps to ban smoking on public transport.

Mr. Fowler: No, Sir. The provision for smoking on public transport is a matter for the operators, and is not one on which I would seek to intervene.

Mr. Higgins: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports of the recent conference of the British Medical Association which called for the banning of smoking on buses and trains? If he is not prepared to go that far will he, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Social Services, consider, in the negotiations that are taking place on advertising, the idea that advertisements should appear on public transport pointing out the dangers to health caused by smoking?

Mr. Fowler: I shall look at my right hon. Friend's second point. If he wishes to hear my view on smoking it is that people should not smoke. I also believe in the minimum of Government intervention rather than more.

Mr. Stoddart: Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to resist the attempts of the Stalinists in the House to remove individual freedom from 50 per cent. of our population? Is he aware that on trains and buses 50 per cent. of accommodation is reserved for non-smokers and that on London Transport more than two-thirds of the accommodation is so reserved? What will these people wish to ban next? Will it be drinking, sex or what?

Dr. M. S. Miller: Not necessarily in that order.

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) says "Not necessarily in that order." All the same, the mind boggles at what could come to pass. I should point out to the House that British Rail intends to increase the non-smoking accommodation on trains. However, the Government do not wish to lay down general rules in this area.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he did what my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) advocates he would simply reduce the number of people travelling by rail and make them use their motor cars, which would make no sense at all?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend's comment is very sensible.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Secretary of State aware that one of our greatest parliamentarians said that smoking never hurt him? He lived to the age of 90.

Mr. Fowler: That is so and is a further reason why Government should not seek to intervene in this matter.

Trunk Roads

Mr. Conlan: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the resources available for trunk roads are adequate to carry out the three priorities set out in the White Paper on roads.

Mr. Fowler: I have of course, set my priorities in the light of the available resources. We are spending more on trunk roads than the previous Administration spent in each of their last two years in office.

Mr. Conlan: Does the Secretary of State recall that the White Paper said that priority would be given to industrial and port routes? Work on the M20 has been suspended and work on the M3 has yet to be announced. Bypasses are another priority. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that 36 bypasses are on the list of suspended schemes, that 34 are waiting to be included in the reserve list and that a further 35 schemes will not begin until 1994?

Mr. Fowler: I do not claim that we are proceeding with all the road schemes


with which we would necessarily like to proceed. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will have noted our decision 10 days ago about the M3. In 1979-80 this Government spent £ 380 million. That compares with an expenditure of £ 369 million by the previous Administration in 1978-79 and £ 357 million in 1977-78. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman is on slightly weak ground in making his complaint.

Mr. Adley: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, in view of the continuing carnage on the M3, and in the light of the fact that his decision is not perfect, he will, nevertheless, proceed with those sections that are agreed and not hold the entire scheme up on the pretext that, because some people do not wish the road to be built, we should do nothing until every inch has been agreed?

Mr. Fowler: I certainly give that assurance. Obviously, I understand the disappointment of my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and I have followed the recommendations of the inspector. We must now proceed not only with two-thirds of the road but look again at the possibilities of finding a less damaging solution.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the Minister agree that public resources are precious at present? Will he, therefore, suggest to Sir Peter Parker that they should not be wasted on this spurious advertising campaign which he is currently undertaking? Although we need electrification of the railway service and high speed trains, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we also need vital road projects such as the M25 if we are to have a good infrastructure and a successful economy?

Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I made that point in answer to an earlier question, but a comment such as that coming from the Opposition Benches will underline the concern felt about that advertisement.

Mr. Hill: May I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks about the M3? However, is he aware of the concern felt by those who earn their living from the port of Southampton about the fact that we shall have a different financial structure for the British Transport Docks

Board? Does he realise that we wish to make that undertaking viable? Is he aware that the only way it can be made viable is if there are sufficient motorways serving the port of Southampton?

Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend. The M3 is a crucial route to one of our most important ports. We now have to look at the possibilities for the remaining one-third—the Winchester bypass—and if it will help I shall certainly meet a delegation of my hon. Friends on the matter.

National Freight Corporation

Mr. Temple-Morris: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on the timing of the sale of the National Freight Corporation.

Mr. Fowler: I would hope in the first part of next year, but that must depend on the market.

Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my hon. Friend realise that these proposals are most welcome on the Conservative Benches, that they have been well accepted within the NFC, and that the sooner they are implemented the better? Does he agree that the wider the role permitted to private enterprise under his proposals, the safer and more secure will be the long-term future of all the employees in the NFC?

Mr. Fowler: My hon. Friend is right. This is a good company which can become even better under the structure we have in mind for it.

Mr. Dobson: What consultations has the Minister had about his proposals with those working in the corporation?

Mr. Fowler: We have had consultations over the past 15 months. We debated the provisions in our proceedings on what is now the Transport Act. I am glad to say that within the NFC a great many people are enthusiastically in favour of these very good proposals.

British Railways Property Board

Mr. Dobson: asked the Minister of Transport what contribution the British Railways property board made to the finances of British Railways in each of the last five financial years.

Mr. Fowler: The contribution to the railways board's cash flow from both the operational and non-operational property activities in each of the last five calendar years was £ 28 million in 1975, £ 32 million in 1976, £ 26 million in 1977, £ 33 million 1978 and £ 41 million in 1979.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister give an undertaking that that sort of money will continue to be made available under the sell-off scheme that he announced on 14 July? Or will it be sacrificed as part of the right hon. Gentleman's privatisation policy which seems designed to demonstrate his political virility to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Fowler: I think that I made the position clear. This policy has been agreed between myself and the chairman of the British Railways Board. The hon. Gentleman must take that point on board, as must the official Opposition. The board will retain the cash flow from most of its operational property. Of course, it will continue to have the proceeds from disposals in this area.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the British Rail property board could develop its surplus land more profitably, and so reduce the public sector borrowing requirement, it could only do so if the worst iniquities of the development land tax under the 1976 Act were eliminated? Will he therefore have early and urgent discussions with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this regard, especially in respect of the Old Street and Liverpool Streeet station development?

Mr. Fowler: I take that point. The Position of DLT is, of course, of great importance for BR, and I will undertake to talk to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor about it.

Mr. Bagier: What would be the effect on the fares structure of depriving British Rail of the profit margin? Has the right hon. Gentleman any answer to Sir Peter Parker's statement that fares will have to be reconsidered in September unless there is a distinct change in Government policy on the external finance limits?

Mr. Fowler: Our policy will have no effect on fares. Again, I must remind hon. Members that the four non-rail

businesses into which we are introducing private capital have as a whole been cash takers rather than cash givers for the board over the past five years. There has been a cash flow of about £ 25 million from the BRB into the subsidiaries.

M1 and M6

Mr. David Young: asked the Minister of Transport if he will make a statement on current delays on the Ml and M6 as a result of roadworks; when the works will be completed; and what discussions have taken place between his officials and the police concerning remedial action to reduce and control delays.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As my right hon. Friend announced in last month's White Paper, 13 major repair contracts will be carried out on the Ml and M6 motorways this year at phased intervals between March and the end of the year. While some delays to drivers are inevitable, we intend to take every practicable step to reduce them to the minimum. We are greatly assisted by advice from the police who are consulted early in the planning of all major motorway repairs.

Mr. Young: May I draw the Parliamentary Secretary's attention to the problem arising from signposting, particularly where lanes are reduced from three to two or even one? Will he consult the police to see what can be done about the problem of drivers ignoring early warning signs to get into the appropriate lane with the result that chaos is caused where the merging of lanes eventually takes place and there is frustration all round? Will he look at the general question of signposting on motorways to ensure that where repairs are carried out it is accurate, adequate and is removed when not required?

Mr. Clarke: The problems arising where lanes are reduced are being eased by constant sophistication of the contraflow system. We certainly do our best to ease the flow of traffic into reduced lanes by proper advanced signing and coning. We consult the police about that. We are thinking of extending further the information available to motorists about possible delays, and we are even thinking of locating courtesy boards at road works


so that motorists can understand the cause of the delay.

Mr. Michael Morris: Will my hon. and learned Friend call for a report on the time taken by direct labour departments, such as that used in my county of Northamptonshire, to complete work on the Ml compared with the performance of contractors to see whether, as I suspect, there is a difference?

Mr. Clarke: The whole question of direct labour organisations is being examined. When we reach conclusions there will be some changes in the arrangements for highways works, as for other work.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a few years ago these road works were a major inconvenience? Then they became a national joke. Now it is more serious than that. When will it be possible to make an uninterrupted journey to the North-West?

Mr. Clarke: The extent and age of the motorway system is such that I do not think that anyone can anticipate a time when it will be free of major repairs. We have to time repairs in such a way that no excessive delays are caused in any part of the system, and we must carry on improving our methods to reduce delays to motorists.

Mr. Cockeram: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that it is a euphemism to say that our motorways are being repaired? They are basically being reconstructed. Clearly, in the early days, inadequate information was supplied and the wrong decisions made by those responsible for the construction of the motorways. Would not the work now being carried out be unnecessary if the right decisions had been taken earlier?

Mr. Clarke: With hindsight one can undoubtedly say that the extent to which heavy traffic would be attracted to the motorways was underestimated. However, it is also the case that some of them are getting quite old. A road does not have an indefinite life. The motorways had a design life of only 15 or 20 years, and substantial reconstruction work is inevitable.

Motorway Safety

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Minister of Transport if he will review the effectiveness of the present regulations relating to motorway safety.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The regulations are still effective, although a few minor revisions are being considered. If my hon. Friend has a particular safety point to put forward I should be happy to consider it.

Mr. Atkins: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the concern that exists about motorway coaches and their behaviour on motorways, particularly in view of recent accidents involving coaches with children on board, and particularly in respect of the fast driving of coaches in the fast lane?

Mr. Clarke: Coaches are subject to speed restrictions and regulations as are all other vehicles. I doubt whether any one category of vehicle is responsible for bad driving on motorways. I am most concerned about recent accidents. Rigorous standards of PSV driver licensing are enforced which should prevent a low standard of driving.

Mr. Sheerman: I recognise that priorities for transport safety lie in directions other than motorways, and that these roads are reasonably safe. Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that coaches should be prohibited from the fast lane? Is the Minister aware that the first indications of the inquest this morning into the tragic death of a boy over the weekend on the M62, on the borders of my constituency, indicated that a contraflow system may have contributed to the cause of the accident? I do not want to prejudge events, but it seems that the cause was not fast driving in the fast lane. Is the Minister aware that contraflow systems are dangerous?

Mr. Clarke: Motorways are the safest roads in our network, and coaches provide one of the safest forms of travel in the country. We are mainly concerned with improving the regulations on the structure and safety of coaches. I shall look at the suggestions that are being made, but the hon. Gentleman must


realise that modern coaches can quite well be driven at 70 mph, and it would be an inconvenience to them to exclude them from the fast lane if they are being driven properly.

Mr. Iain Mills: Will my hon. and learned Friend consider holding detailed discussions with a firm in the Midlands—of which I know he is aware—that is putting forward alternatives to the barriers used for motorway contraflow systems? Having met that firm and examined its proposition, would he then consider introducing regulations to encourage innovations that would make contraflow systems more visible, safe and better for the motorway users?

Mr. Clarke: We are constantly considering ways to improve contraflow systems, and constantly looking at new devices, such as barriers. I am aware of the example that my hon. Friend has in mind. I shall continue to examine that, along with any other examples that may be put forward.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister give some thought and consideration to making crash barriers compulsory on all motorways, especially the M74 where there have been so many serious accidents? Docs the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that would obviate many of the difficulties that affect that motorway?

Mr. Clarke: Once a road goes north of the border any questions relating to it are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is the practice in England to have crash barriers in the centre of motorways. We extend them to other trunk roads where that is justified.

Fares (Increases)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will issue a direction to British Railways and London Transport to keep down rises in fares in the next financial year to less than 10 per cent.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: No, Sir. Fares policy is a matter for the operators concerned. I am sure that they will consider carefully the effect of fares increases on the use of their services and seek ways of avoiding unnecessarily steep increases by reducing costs and improving efficiency.

Mr. Lewis: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that a large number of people commute to and from work via British Rail and London Transport? Is he further aware that there have been considerable increases in fares during the past year? Does he realise that the Government will find it difficult to keep down wage and salary increases to 10 per cent. if British Rail and London Transport increase their fares again? Is he aware that, despite OPEC, it is cheaper to come into town in a car than as a commuter on public transport?

Mr. Clarke: The Government continue to hope that British Rail can maintain a system of annual fares increases. We are currently holding discussions with the board about its financial difficulties. The Government have firmly set their face against any suggestion that the captive market of commuters should be singled out for high fare increases. London Transport is a matter for the GLC. My hon. Friend will be aware that the GLC is anxious to make progress on improving efficiency and reducing costs on the London Transport network.

Mr. Newens: Is the Minister aware that users of the Central line in Essex are not only paying higher fares than other users of the Central line, but are threatened with the closure of the line between Epping and Ongar because of the refusal of the Essex county council—unlike the GLC—to support that line? Will the Minister say when he will meet the deputation that has asked to see him to settle the matter? What action will, he take to safeguard the interests of users of the Central line in Essex, both in keeping the line open and in paying the same fares as other users of London Transport underground lines?

Mr. Clarke: The consent of my right hon. Friend is required before any line can be closed. I would not wish to prejudice the statutory proceedings that lie behind that. I have already met deputations about that issue, and I should be happy to meet more. I cannot understand why Essex county council feels unable to make any contribution to the line. In the end, it must make choices about transport priorities in the county.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Because the unfortunate fare increases seem to be becoming biannual, if not tri-annual, agonies for the


commuting public, will my hon. and learned Friend approach the management of both concerns to suggest that their public relations be improved so that the travelling public know precisely what proportion of the increase is attributable to wage increases, to energy cost increases or to other causes?

Mr. Clarke: The figures are difficult to break down. The travelling public do not expect any of the passenger industries simply to pass on to them the effect of high wage increases. They must look for ways to increase productivity, reduce costs, and generally improve the efficiency of services.

Mr. Walter Johnson: Does the Minister agree that with inflation running at 20 per cent. it is quite impossible for British Rail or London Transport to keep down their fare increases to 10 per cent? Does he agree that they cannot isolate themselves from inflation any more than anybody else?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that point. But, like any other well-run business, they have a duty to keep their costs under control and their fare increases to a minimum.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the proposition advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) would mean that the generality of taxpayers would have to subsidise the users of British Rail and London Transport? Is not the real answer to proceed along the lines set out in the Transport Act 1980 and widen the choice for all customers, and provide an opportunity to break down the artificial barriers that British Rail has enjoyed, such as privileges of monopoly rights?

Mr. Clarke: There is some case for subsidy of public transport in relatively restricted areas such as providing services to isolated rural communities, or relieving urban congestion in commuter services. I accept my hon. Friend's point. There is no reason why the generality of taxpayers should give a general subsidy to reduce fares for that section of the population which travels by train and bus. We put our faith in increased competition and efficiency. That is underlined by the Transport Act.

Mr. Booth: Does the Minister realise that railway fares in Britain are higher than in any other country in Europe? Does he further realise that investment in railways in Britain is lower than in any other country in Europe? Is that the Government's transport policy at work, or is it the consequence of other policies that they are pursuing, the cost of which they expect the British travelling public to bear?

Mr. Clarke: As my right hon. Friend has said, the investment being provided for British Rail is at the same level as that provided by the previous Labour Administration. The investment ceiling for British Rail is exempt from the Government cuts in public spending. Many international comparisons are made about railway systems. It is true that ours is a high fare-low productivity system. I know that the board is anxious to improve the position.

Number Plate System

Mr. Dykes: asked the Minister of Transport if he intends to hold an early meeting with interested parties who have made representations recently on the need to change the motor vehicle registration number plate system.

Mr. Fowler: The present registration system comes to an end in July 1983 and I have today published a consultation paper inviting ideas on a new system of registration marks.
I should like to take account of, as many ideas as possible. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Dykes: Subject to seeing that paper, which I have not yet done, may I ask my right hon. Friend to assure the House that he will take steps to get rid of the year letter on the number plates which, although originally introduced for good reasons, has now distorted the pattern of motor sales and caused social snobbery?

Mr. Fowler: That is one of the points that we shall examine. There is a variety of solutions set out in the consultation document. We should welcome representations and views on them.

Mr. Iain Mills: May I thank my right hon. Friend for such an interesting reply? Will he ensure that there is consultation


with those involved with security? My right hon. Friend probably knows of my interest in that matter. Does he agree that better security, especially in tracing stolen vehicles and vehicles used in crimes, could come from a different and better number plate system?

Mr. Fowler: We shall take that point into account when considering the representations. We intend to have as wide a consultation on that matter as we can.

European Community Budget (United Kingdom Contribution)

Mr. John H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Transport how the recent settlement of the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget in the years up to 1982 might affect the funds returned to the United Kingdom and earmarked for particular projects such as roads.

Mr. Wickenden: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has received any proposals following the European Economic Community budget settlement, for increased Community expenditure on infrastructure projects in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Detailed arrangements for implementing the recent agreement on reducing our net contribution to the Community budget have yet to be agreed. The Commission has proposed participation in transport infrastructure as part of the Community's supplementary measures, but it is too soon to say what programmes or projects will eventually be associated with the increased receipts.

Mr. Osborn: Will those receipts be for projects of Community interest? Is there not a need for care in defining what we mean by Community interests? Will my hon. and learned Friend assure me that the projects will include an expanded and speeded-up road programme? I have in mind an infrastructure link between Sheffield and Manchester, which has been dawdling for many years.

Mr. Clarke: The projects with which the receipts are linked must have some Community interest. We shall agree those with the Commission. As my right hon. Friend has made clear, there is no way in which the return of our budget contri-

bution can lead to increased public spending in Britain. We are avoiding the need for further cuts in public spending in transport programmes by taking the receipts from the European Community. On the question of the infrastructure link between Sheffield and Manchester, there are already improvements at Stocksbridge and Wortley in the programme. They are scheduled for the reserve list for 1982-83.

Mr. Wickenden: Will my hon. and learned Friend say whether he has discussed the possibility of a Community contribution towards the Channel link? If so, what would be the probable level of that contribution?

Mr. Clarke: That cannot possibly arise out of the short-term matter that we are discussing here, of what happens as a result of the budget settlement which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has achieved. The Channel tunnel is obviously a much longer-term project. If that gets any aid from EEC funds, it will be in the context of the proposed transport infrastructure fund, which is still being considered by the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Jay: If there is to be no increase in public spending as a result of this operation, will the Minister confirm what other Ministers have stated—that the schemes on which this EEC money will be spent are those which would have gone forward anyway with United Kingdom finance?

Mr. Clarke: Had we not achieved this settlement, and had the supplementary payments not been forthcoming from the Commission, there would undoubtedly have been further cuts in public spending programmes. Therefore, the schemes with which these funds are associated are maintaining their places in existing programmes because of the budget settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Oral Answers to Questions — Civil Servants

Mr. Chapman: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what was the total of non-industrial civil servants in 1969 and 1979, respectively; and what was the total number of industrial civil servants in 1969 and 1979, respectively.

The Minister of State, Civil Service Department (Mr. Paul Channon): At 1 April 1969, there were 470,000 non-industrial civil servants and 214,300 industrial civil servants in central Government Departments, excluding the Post Office. Numbers at 1 April 1979 were 565,800 non-industrials and 166,500 industrials.

Mr. Chapman: Do not those figures reveal that a pretty substantial decline in the number of industrial civil servants has concealed an even more massive increase in the number of non-industrial civil servants? Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to distinguish between these two quite different categories? Will he always try to do so when giving statistics on future occasions?

Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right on both points. I am glad to be able to tell him that the most recent figures show a further reduction in the size of the Civil Service by just under 5,000, to 700,200. In fact, that represents a reduction both in the number of non-industrial and industrial civil servants.

Mr. Dalyell;: What is the policy on the recruitment of youngsters to the Civil Service? Is not there a great danger that if one cuts back recruiting at this stage one distorts the Civil Service structure for many years to come?

Mr. Channon: I think that a considerable amount of recruiting is still going on, because the wastage in the Civil Service is very much greater than the figures that I have just given.

Mr. Marlow: As the non-industrial Civil Service is the most cosseted and unjustifiably secure occupation in the country at present, when will my right hon. Friend take action to pay such people as civil servants instead of as civil masters, as they are paid at present?

Mr. Channon: I do not think that I would accept everything which my hon. Friend has said—most unusually. However, we shall shortly reach a separate question about pay.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the Minister accept that, as a result of the proposed cutbacks in Civil Service manpower the Government are directly responsible for increasing the level of unemployment, by reducing the opportunities for new recruits, particularly school leavers, to enter

the service? Will he think again about what he said when he last answered oral questions—that all the Civil Service sector is non-productive? Will he realise, as his hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) has pointed out, that areas such as the Export Credits Guarantee Department are an integral part of the productive capacity of the country, as are many of the non-industrial sectors? In the light of yesterday's unemployment figures, will he think again about the cuts that have been announced?

Mr. Channon: The one thing that I am absolutely certain about is that we shall not cure Britain's economic or employment problems merely by increasing the number of jobs in the Civil Service. There will still be a substantial amount of recruitment, but I believe it to be in the national interest that we should have the smallest and most effidient Civil Service that we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — Sir Derek Rayner

Mr. Thornton: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress of Sir Derek Rayner in reviewing the work of Departments.

Mr. Channon: Sir Derek Rayner has already assisted Ministers in the conduct of 29 projects in individual Departments. He is now assisting in 39 further scrutinies, in addition to 22 in the review of statistical services. Recurrent savings firmly decided from the first round total £ 20 million a year and £ 8 to £ 12 million once-for-all. As both Sir Derek Rayner and I have made clear, the scrutinies are, of course, the work of Departments under their Ministers.

Mr. Thornton: What has Sir Derek Rayner recommended for my right hon. Friend's own Department? Can he give the House an assurance that those recommendations will be followed up?

Mr. Channon: I am considering Sir Derek's recommendations in respect of the Civil Service Department, which involves charging for courses at the Civil Service college. However, we must look at all of this in perspective. The scrutinies are merely one part of the Government's continuing activities to make massive savings, and to increase efficiency, in the Civil Service as a whole.

Mr. Hardy: Are not these scrutinies expensive and time-consuming? Can the Minister give some idea of how much the work of Sir Derek Rayner has actually cost, how many people have been employed and, perhaps, how many man-hours have been occupied in each of the Government Departments?

Mr. Channon: Sir Derek Rayner and his staff represent a small number of people. He has people in each Department carrying out the actual scrutinies They are people in the Departments who are anxious and enthusiastic to increase the efficiency of their own Departments. I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman has said and shall write to him.

Mr. Philip Holland: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Sir Derek Rayner's review covers the work of official bodies that are associated with each Department as well as the work of the Departments themselves?

Mr. Channon: Sir Derek Rayner's job consists of individual scrutinies of specific things in each Department. He is also assisting the Prime Minister on a number of more wide-ranging matters.

Mr. Christopher Price: As the Minister is in charge of open government, as well as Sir Derek Rayner, will he ensure that these studies are published as soon as they are known, made available to Select Committees of the House and placed in the Library of the House at the same time as they are delivered to Ministers?

Mr Channon: I shall consider that point. The studies are not my responsibility but that of individual Ministers. I have given a list of all the scrutinies, and I shall certainly consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — Pay

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Minister for the Civil Service on what basis Civil Service pay is now determined.

Mr. Channon: The present pay system for the main non-industrial grades of the Civil Service, up to and including assistant secretary, is based on fair comparisons with the pay and conditions of comparable jobs outside, made by an independent Pay Research Unit. Recommendations for the pay of grades above assistant secretary have for some years

now been provided by the independent Top Salaries Review Body under Lord Boyle. In taking its final decisions about Civil Service pay increases each year, the Government must also take into account any overriding national considerations.

Mr. Miller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread concern about the basis of comparability on which Civil Service pay is determined in the grades that he has described, but that any new basis for payment would have to be agreed and negotiated with the representatives of those involved?

Mr. Channon: I think that I agree with both those points. I am well aware of the concern in all quarters of the House, and we are at present looking for improvements in the way in which Civil Service pay is determined.

Mr. English: How are the Government getting on with the question of incentive payments for civil servants?

Mr. Channon: That is one of a number of studies on which I have already opened discussions with the Council of Civil Service Unions. I hope to be in a position to make a statement in due course.

Mr. Farr: In his negotiations with the Civil Service, what account was taken of the privilege of index-linked pensions?

Mr. Channon: There are three specific deductions for index-linked pensions. As my hon. Friend knows, a committee under Sir Bernard Scott is at present considering the whole question of deductions for pensions in the Civil Service and other sections of the public service.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the Government could save thousands of millions of pounds a year if they treated civil servants on the same basis as they treat Members of Parliament?

Mr. Channon: I think that there is something in that. However, a saving could be made if the hon. Gentleman stopped tabling so many written questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — New Technology

Mr. Lee: asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the introduction of new technology to


save money and increase efficiency in the Civil Service.

Mr. Channon: I am determined to use all effective modern methods to increase efficiency and save money. A great deal has already been done on this front, and talks are continuing with the unions to enable us to press ahead still further.

Mr. Lee: Is my right hon. Friend aware that about 200 hon. Members, representing virtually all sides of the House, have signed three early-day motions urging the Government to award the Inland Revenue computer contract to the indigenous British computer company, ICL? Can he give an indication of when the Government are likely to make a decision? Does he realise that continued delay can only damage the international reputation and credibility of ICL?

Mr. Channon: I am well aware of the early-day motions, and of the strength of feeling in the House. However, I cannot add anything further to what my right hon Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to questions on 17 July.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that he will do his level best to ensure that the decision is announced before the House rises for the parliamentary recess? Is he aware that some hon. Members are worried that a decision to put the computer contract out to open tender may be taken without the House having had an opportunity to debate the matter?

Mr. Channon: I cannot give a guarantee on that, because I do not know the timing of events. However, I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that the Minister meant it jocularly, but as this is not the first time that he has adopted that attitude—which has nothing to do with the question or the answer, so it is out of order—may I ask whether it is not a fact that I have the right, much as he, the civil servants and the Government may not like it, to table as many different questions as I choose? It is not for the Minister to sit with a sneer on his face and try to prevent me from putting questions—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. He is well within his rights in tabling written questions for answer in the House.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what you have already said, and in view of my hon. Friend's comments, would it not also be worth while taking into account that from time to time, possibly every week, Ministers, and perhaps the Minister who is involved in this little fracas, far from saving money on written questions, get some of their horrible Back Benchers to plant questions? That also costs money.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For as long as I have been in the House, that unworthy suspicion has been in hon. Members' minds

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the rights and privileges of hon. Members, will you give some thought as to how hon. Members can be protected against abuse? I refer to the way in which the most controversial subjects, such as the question of arms sales to Chile, have been buried in written replies.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter that is within my discretion, and I cannot rule on it. It is not a point of order. How Ministers reveal their information is a matter for them. The hon. Gentleman must pursue his point in some other way, rather than through a point of order.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have just explained to the hon. Gentleman that the matter is not a point of order, and I cannot rule on it.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I briefly make the point—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: I have just dealt with it.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw to your attention the fact that the Civil Service Department has deliberately increased the number of written questions? When I


tabled a written question about the entertainment and foreign travelling expenses of civil servants I was told that I must ask the question of every Department, because the Civil Service Department did not know the answer.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): If I may intervene in this fracas, may I say that I have heard the exchange that has taken place? It is clear that every hon. Member has a right to ask questions, but there is also a well-known rule that Ministers are not obliged to answer questions if unnecessary expense is involved. We have to keep a balance in the matter. I shall look into the complaint of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), and I shall write to him.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Following the statement by the Leader of the House, may I suggest that if the House rises early for the Summer Recess Ministers will have fewer questions to answer?

Mr. Winnick: Further to my point of order, and also perhaps on a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Controversial statements are made, and people outside are deeply concerned, rightly or wrongly—in my view rightly—about arms being sold to a blood-stained ré gime—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling. May I say to the House, because it will stand us in good stead on other occasions, that when hon. Members feel deeply about certain matters we must take care to safeguard the traditions and rules of the House. It is in the interests of all hon. Members.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Further to the original point of order and the answer of the Leader of the House, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether it is widely known that the Government have set a financial limit on the value of a question. Some have been deemed to be too expensive to answer. That level has not been raised in recent years, and because of the rising level of inflation a greater proportion of questions are not being answered. Surely the House should be able to take up that matter with the Government.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. As a Minister, I always answered every question.

Mr. Greville Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it now in order for Ministers to deflect questions asked of them to local authorities? That did not happen previously, but it is now happening, and we cannot get the answers that we want.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for the way in which Ministers answer questions.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (ENGLAND)

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on changes in the organisation and management of the National Health Service in England. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is announcing his proposals for Wales today, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be announcing his proposals next week. My Department—[Interruption.]

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can it be made clear at the outset that there will be a separate statement on the Floor of the House from a Minister representing Scotland? The Health Service in Scotland is an entirely different organisation from that in England and Wales.

Mr. Speaker: The only request that I have received is for the statement that is about to be made.

Mr. Hamilton: It is an outrage.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard what I said because of the noise that was being made by many of his hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be announcing his proposals next week.

Mr. Hamilton: In the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There will be time for questions after the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask the Secretary of State whether—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must address his point of order to me.

Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the statements regarding Scotland and Wales be made as oral statements in the House—Wales today and Scotland next week?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot answer that point of order. The Secretary of State will be subject to questioning at the end of his statement.

Mr,. Jenkin: Perhaps I may respond to the right hon. Gentleman's point. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has taken note of what he said, but that is a matter for next week.

Mr. Rowlands: Will you advise us, Mr. Speaker? The Secretary of State said that the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a statement today. If he is not to make it orally, and as the statement that has just started is described as being about England and not about Wales, are we to understand that the Secretary of State for Wales may simply issue a press release, or something like that, and not make a statement in the House and be subjected to the same interrogation and questioning as the Secretary of State for Social Services?

Mr. Speaker: The House must understand that I cannot order any Minister to make a statement in the House. I have to deal with the statement that the Secretary of State for Social Services is making. I cannot advise the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands), except to say that I have received no request for a statement about Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: Will you tell us, Mr Speaker, whether it will be in order for us, on this statement, to question the Secretary of State for Social Services on what is to happen in Wales?

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not correct that it is only by courtesy that the House hears a ministerial statement? Would it not be a good idea if we refused to hear the statement until the Government have got themselves in order?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I should call on the Secretary of State make his statement.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Michael Foot.

Mr. Foot: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the House is in a considerable state of confusion. The right hon. Gentleman proposes to make a statement that refers only to England, and he suggests that there is to be a statement next week about Scotland, but in the meantime


we are not at all sure what is to happen about Wales. It would appear, therefore, that Welsh Members are to be deprived of the opportunity of putting any questions on what is to happen about Wales, as the statement is to be made not in this House but elsewhere.
I suggest that that is not the right way to treat the House and that the best course for the Government would be not to make the statement today but to consider the matter and tomorrow ask the leave of the House to make a proper statement. If such a course is not followed, Welsh Members will be deprived of their rights. I know that Conservative Members may not worry about that, but it worries Opposition Members. In view of the confusion in which the Government have placed us, I suggest that they should not proceed with the statement now but should make it tomorrow, when they have sorted the matter out.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that you have the sole right to decide whether to grant permission for a statement to be made, although invariably you grant that permission? We know that it is done in order that the House may be advised and informed of certain matters. In view of the fact that a full report of the statement has obviously been leaked by the Minister and appears in today's Daily Telegraph, I suggest that no harm would be done if you were to withdraw permission for the statement to be made, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) suggested. Then we could all read the statement in The Daily Telegraph and come back tomorrow well prepared to put our supplementary questions to the Minister.

Mr. English: Will you allow me, Mr. Speaker, to move that the leave of the House be not given for this ministerial statement?

Mr. Cryer: I will second that.

Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the custom that before a statement is made Opposition spokesmen are issued with copies of it, so that they may give some prior consideration to it? Are you able to tell us whether in this case the Opposition spokesmen for Scotland and Wales have been issued with statements, so that they may be in

a position to deal with the problems that will face them?

Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood you to have called my right hon. Friend to make a statement, and I do not see how you can, so to speak, "uncall" him. Would it not be a great deal more orderly if he were to be allowed to make his statement? Hon. Members who found some deficiency in it could jump up and down afterwards.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) is right. I have called on the Secretary of State to make his statement. I have been taking these points of order as a preliminary to the statement that the Secretary of State is likely to make.

Mr. Ennals: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. At the time when you called the Secretary of State, presumably you did not know that the statement would not be dealing with Scotland and Wales, or that no announcement would be made about Scotland and Wales. May I, therefore, second the motion that has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), that permission be not granted for the statement to be made?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot accept such a motion at this stage. I have already called the right hon. Gentleman to make the statement.

Mr. Ioan Evans: When "Patients First" was issued, it was issued by the Welsh Office and by the Department of Health and Social Security. I understand that there is to be a statement about Scotland in the House next week [Interruption.] I thought that that was understood. That may happen. My point is that the present statement does not relate to Wales and that the announcement about Wales is apparently to be made somewhere else. We have not been told where it is to be made. Are not the Welsh Members being denied the opportunity to question the Secretary of State on what is contained in that statement?

Mr. Speaker: It is not my intention to confine questions to English Members—[Interruption.] I can do no more to help the House.

Mr. Foot: It is quite true, Mr. Speaker, as you have said, that you had called on the right hon. Gentleman to make his statement and that he had started to make it. Points of order have been made by several hon. Members, and certainly those from Wales have the larger grievance. Surely, in the light of what has occurred, it would be possible for the Leader of the House to say that he will make arrangements for a statement to be made tomorrow about England, as well as such statement as the Government may wish to make about Wales.
If the Leader of the House were to rise and make that suggestion, it would, I am sure, meet with the wishes of the House. It would get us out of the difficulty. Otherwise, there will be complete confusion about when a statement is to be made about Wales, when the Minister can be questioned, and how the rights of Welsh Members can be protected. I suggest to the Leader of the House that he is the person to rescue the House and the Government from the difficulty. It would be perfectly within the province of the Leader of the House to suggest that statements on both England and Wales should be made to the House tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Secretary Jenkin.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order can be raised but they must relate to the rules of the House. I have tried to help the House as much as I can. I cannot do any more than call the Secretary of State, who has already started to make his statement. I suggest—[Interruption.] Order. I suggest that it is in the best interests of the House that we keep questions until after the statement has been heard.

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is, of course—[Hon. Members: "Speak up."] I think hon. Members will hear. There is another avenue of approach open to you, Sir. You could—it is within your powers—either on your own decision or at the request of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, order a temporary suspension of the sitting of the House. That would give an opportunity—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be allowed to make his point.

Mr. Faulds: Thank you, Sir, for your protection. That would give the Chancellor of the Duchy an opportunity to order his minions, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, to come here, where they should be, and make statements to the House rather than to issue press releases that are not open to immediate question by Members.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): Mr. Speaker, as far as I can see, the difficulty arises not over the statement being made on England but because a statement is not being made on Wales. We have had an indication that a separate statement is to be made on Wales. I suggest that while my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is making his statement on England I should pursue the matter to see whether the interests of other hon. Members can be met and consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, who is here.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House could go much further than that. I think that Scottish and Welsh Members would be disinclined to accept that unless we got a specific guarantee that separate statements will be made on the Floor of the House next week, or some time soon. We must have that specific undertaking before we are prepared to consent to the statement being made by the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate what the Leader of the House is trying to do, but without a clear assurance before the Secretary of State for Social Services makes his statement, many hon. Members will be in a dilemma. You have already said that you might not confine your calling of hon. Members to English Members. Unless we know that the Secretary of State for Wales is to make a separate statement this afternoon we shall not know whether to pursue our questions with the Secretary of State for Social Services. I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to state categorically that the Secretary of State for


Wales, who is present, will make a statement on the Welsh aspects of this problem now.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a humble English Back Bencher, I should like to refer to the ruling that you gave a few minutes ago. I appreciate that you were trying to be extremely helpful to the House. You intimated that if the Secretary of State were to be allowed to make his statement you would not restrict questions to English Members. I am sure that you were trying to be very helpful, but it must be apparent that the moment the Secretary of State for Social Services is asked a question appertaining to Wales by a Welsh Member or a Scottish question from a Scottish Member, he will say that it does not fall within the purview of his responsibility. No matter how responsible and helpful you have tried to be, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State clearly will not be able to answer for Scotland or Wales. I feel that we are entitled to a further statement from the Leader of the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Mr. Speaker, I have taken advantage of those exchanges to have a word with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that the House will be satisfied with this suggestion: with your permission, after my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has made his statement, the Secretary of State for Wales—[Interruption.] Just a minute; one thing at a time—the Secretary of State for Wales will make a statement, and the Secretary of State for Scotland will also make a statement on this subject, on a subsequent date, from this Dispatch Box. I think that we have done all that we can to be reasonable, even in July.

Mr. Jenkin: In response to the consultative document "Patients First", my Department received over 3,500 comments. I have had an analysis of these comments prepared and a copy has been placed in the Library. Further copies will be available in the Vote Office in a few days. There is considerable support for our proposal that the organisation of the National Health Service should be streamlined. Therefore, I am today issuing a circular to health authorities on the

changes to be made to achieve this. Copies of this and of my statement are in the Vote Office.
On structure, we have decided to remove a tier of administration. Instead of 90 area health authorities administering 199 districts, we will create a single tier of district health authorities. Each will serve a population of—generally—between 150,000 and 500,000. I have asked the regional health authorities to make recommendations to me on the boundaries of the new authorities by the end of next February after full consultation with interested bodies. I have told them that in order to minimise upheaval the new district health authorities should as far as possible follow the boundaries of existing health districts—including single district areas—because this should in most cases provide a satisfactory pattern.
I want the new authorities to enjoy considerable autonomy in managing their affairs. Greater freedom should encourage a greater sense of responsibility; and smaller authorities, closer to the communities they serve, should be more responsive to local needs.
With a view to enhancing local autonomy still further, I intend later on to review the role of regional health authorities. Regions' responsibilities for strategic planning, the allocation of finance to the districts and the maintenance of financial discipline will remain. Talks will be held between representatives of the doctors, my Department and the National Health Service on the future management of medical staff contracts with a view to seeking a way of reconciling my desire for more autonomy at the local level with the doctors' genuine concern that the benefits which have resulted from the existing arrangements should not be lost.
There is also strong support for our other main proposal—to strengthen management at the local level and remove the intermediate tier between the district and the local unit. Each district health authority, which will be served by a single management team, will therefore arrange the district's services into defined units, appoint senior people to manage them and give those people their own budgets. As far as possible, support services will be organised at that level. My objective is to get decision-making down to the


hospital and the community level. In order to give authorities greater flexibility on this, I am cancelling most of the existing instructions that require them to appoint specified officers to a substantial number of posts. District health authorities will decide for themselves what posts to create.
I attach high importance to effective collaboration between the National Health Service and local authorities. I propose, therefore, to retain the present statutory requirement for joint arrangements for collaboration. The creation of new district health authorities will, however, mean that in many parts of England health authorities and local authorities will no longer have common boundaries on a one-to-one basis. It is my hope that in most cases two or more district health authorities will make up one complete non-metropolitan county. I am proposing, in line with many views put to us, that health authorities should average around 16 members—significantly fewer than existing area health authorities. Within this total, I propose that local authorities should appoint four nominees.
There has been considerable support for community health councils; they will be retained in the new structure, with one CHC for each district. Later this year I shall issue a consultative paper seeking views on their membership, role and powers. When, after a few years, we have had experience of the working of the more locally-based district health authorities, I shall review the longer-term case for retaining these separate consumer bodies.
As foreshadowed in "Patients First", I intend to retain the structure of family practitioner committees, but I shall wish to study all the suggestions that have been made to improve collaboration with health authorities, especially in the planning of primary care.
I attach importance to close working between the National Health Service and universities with medical schools. I shall discuss with interested bodies the present arrangements for designating some health authorities as teaching authorities, taking account, for instance, of the extent to which medical students are now taught in hospitals run by non-teaching authorities.
The changes that I have announced imply no criticism of Health Service

managers. They have had to work in what turned out to be an unduly complicated structure. It is much to their credit that the Service has achieved what it has. However, staff at all levels will be affected by the changes, and there must be full consultation with staff interests on the ways in which change takes place. Staff must know that they are going to be treated fairly. We have put forward what I hope: are seen as fair proposals for the filling of posts in the new authorities, for staff protection and for early retirement and redundancy compensation. These proposals are being discussed with the staff sides and I hope that satisfactory agreements can be reached soon.
The 1974 reorganisation represented a major step forward in the integration of hospital and community health services, including primary care. It is the Government's policy, like that of our predecessors, that people should receive care in the community wherever possible. Further, the National Health Service is often criticised for neglect of prevention and of the more positive aspects of health promotion. The changes that I am announcing in structure and management will, by making the Health Service much more a local service serving local communities, reinforce this priority for community care, and should lead also to the closer involvement of the public with policies to promote good health. In this, the role of the relatively new medical speciality of community medicine will be of increasing importance.
The main purpose of the changes that I am announcing is to provide a Health Service that is better and more efficiently managed, and where local decisions can be taken more quickly by local people. At the same time, I am confident that it will be possible to make significant reductions in management costs, and I have told the Health Service that I expect these to be reduced, after a transitional period, by about 10 per cent., equivalent to about £ 30 million a year at present costs. This will release resources which could be used for patient care.
Management and structure, though important, will not solve all our problems. The Government have already embarked on a number of initiatives designed to get better value for money, improve links between the Health Service and local communities, and raise standards. In the



autumn I intend to issue a document outlining the Government's strategy and priorities for health. The proposals that I am announcing today will, when carried into effect, help to achieve what we all seek—a better service for our people.

Mr. Orme: The Secretary of State for Industry should have been present on the Government Front Bench to witness the U-turn that the Government have made on the National Health Service and the correction that they are attempting to make to his disastrous reorganisation. We shall want to consider the statement in detail. It contains a great deal of information and far-reaching proposals.
The Secretary of State has spoken of making a statement later in the year on future proposals. I have before me a document that the right hon. Gentleman sent to the chairmen of regional area health authorities recommending the extension of private practice within the Health Service, to which we are totally opposed. Within that document he excludes certain areas for consultation. He states that certain areas cannot be taken as a basis for consultation.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is to retain community health councils despite the antipathy shown by him and other Ministers towards the councils when they came into office. Why does not the right hon. Gentleman concede defeat on this issue? Why does he not accept that the councils have a crucial part to play in representing patients within the NHS and allow them to play their full part?
I note what the right hon. Gentleman said about savings. It seems that the Government's proposals will lead to a reduction in managerial staff of about 10 per cent. leading to savings of about £ 45 million gross. It is my understanding that that will mean the loss of about 4,500 management jobs and a net saving to the NHS of about £ 30 million a year. We want to know exactly how that is to be achieved and how it will affect the morale of the staff within the NHS.
That leads me to the redundancy agreement that the right hon. Gentleman has failed to reach with the trade unions, not least with NALGO. He has failed to agree to a staff commission, which NHS members have correctly requested, so that

their position may be considered along with the issue of redundancies. Are there to be redundancies, or is there to be natural wastage and reorganisation?
Linked with redundancy is the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. Race), namely, consultations with the TUC and unions in the Health Service such as COHSE, NALGO and NUPE. Is the Secretary of State having consultations with those unions? If so, how are the consultations proceeding?

Mr. Michael Morris: What about the patients?

Mr. Orme: When we dealt with community health councils, we were dealing with the representatives of patients. It was the Conservative Party that wanted to get rid of that representation. We are concerned about patients. We did not hear very much about patients from the right hon. Gentleman.
I turn to the question of democracy within the Health Service. The Government are taking a backward step by reducing local government representation on the new district health authorities. To reduce that representation from one-third to one-quarter with a maximum of 16 members means that where there have been eight local government representatives in the past there will be only four in future. Local government representation, which is an indirect method of democracy, has, in effect, been removed.
My next concern is the size of districts. There seems to be a change in the statement and in the paper that the right hon. Gentleman has issued from that which was proposed in "Patients First". It applies to sizes and areas. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will comment on that and will tell us the number of areas in which he envisages there will be more than one district. I had hoped that reorganisation would get rid of overlapping in the National Health Service.
Paragraph 33 of the Secretary of State's circular states:
The disappearance of AHAs … will impose special strains which could lead to a serious breakdown … This must not be allowed to happen.
What does the Secretary of State mean when he says that it should
not be allowed to happen?


How will he prevent it? What action will he take?
Conservative Members should recognise that we are dealing with patients and with 1 million employees. This is an important subject. The Tory Government made such a hash of the previous reorganisation that we want to get it right this time. I notice that there is an appendix to the document, which deals with London. However, it does not deal completely with London, and there is an urgent need to hold a major inquiry.
The Secretary of State made his statement against a background of public expenditure cuts in the National Health Service. We are concerned about the maintenance and improvement of the National Health Service. We are also concerned about patients within the National Health Service, and about funding. While some of the proposals for reorganisation may be seen as a sign of progress, the proposals do not meet the problems of the National Health Service today.

Mr. Jenkin: Given that the Labour Party has always expressed itself broadly in favour of such streamlining, I think that that was a fairly uncharitable response from the right hon. Gentleman. The document is not concerned with private practice, although perhaps it is characteristic that the right hon. Gentleman should have made that his first question. I have never shown any antipathy towards community health councils. Over the next few years those bodies must be seen to justify their existence, because they cost money.
Most of the staff associations and unions that responded to the document "Patients First" expressed themselves broadly in support of the proposals for streamlining and decentralisation. The terms for protection and redundancy and the other issues that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, are being negotiated by a special negotiating group, which is a sub-committee of the general Whitley council.
I consulted all the main unions involved in the National Health Service. Either my hon. Friend the Minister or I met the unions and discussed their representations. We agree with the Royal Commission that collaboration between health authorities and local authorities depends,

above all, on the will to collaborate. It does not depend on the number of local authority members on health authorities.
The right hon. Gentleman was right about the size of the district. In "Patients First" we leant towards the larger district. However, the representations that were made to us suggested overwhelmingly that the smaller district would be more in accordance with the wishes of those who run the National Health Service. That is why we made that shift.
I shall now turn to finance and the risks of breakdown mentioned in paragraph 33 of the circular. When the National Health Service was last reorganised, control over finance was not as good as it should have been during the change that took place after the election. We intend to take steps, through regional treasuries and, in particular, by setting firm manpower management cost limits on each health authority, to ensure that financial control remains intact.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's wish for a more general inquiry into London. I have appointed an advisory committee, under the chairmanship of Sir John Habakkuk, to advise me on all the issues involved. The appendix gives advice on the reorganisation of London and it is one of the first pieces of work that the advisory committee has done. It is attached to the circular with my blessing. London has difficult problems. However, I do not believe that an open public inquiry, which would necessarily take a long time, would help towards their resolution.

Mr. Beith: Will the Secretary of State note that we certainly support any attempt to undo the damage done by the Secretary of State for Industry when he wished such a ridiculous structure on the National Health Service? Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that getting decision-making down to the local hospital and local community level is at least as important as removing a tier from the administration? Will he continue to emphasise that point? Does he accept that community health councils will remain essential unless there is more democracy in the National Health Service and unless Ministers appoint fewer people, not more? Are there not too many jobs for the boys in the appointment of such bodies?

Mr. Jenkin: I support the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the need to make decisions at the community and hospital level. In "Patients First" we said that that was the most important feature of reorganisation. We want to make it work effectively. As long as almost all finance comes from central Government and from my Department in the form of cash allocations to the National Health Service the Department is accountable. I or the regions, therefore, must, appoint the members of health authorities. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are examining alternative methods of financing the National Health Service. By getting greater decentralisation by means of an insurance system, local health authorities may become more accountable to local communities.

Mr. Crouch: I am glad that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Front Bench have responded to the genuine demand for three separate statements. There are three separate health organisations and that is, therefore, appropriate. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am delighted that he has taken note of the desire to retain community health councils. They provide an element of democracy for the community and for the patient. They cost the small sum of about £ 4 million a year. If the number of elected local government representatives on the new district health authorities is to diminish, my right hon. Friend should consider whether the amount of money provided should be increased and whether it is possible for such representatives to put in the proper amount of time.
I am concerned about democracy in this essential aspect of our social services. My right hon. Friend said that local decisions, taken more quicky by local people, was his aim. I have heard nothing this afternoon from my right hon. Friend to suggest that decisions about disputes among the 1 million employees will be taken at a local level. If they were taken at a local level and not referred all the way to the Secretary of State, we might eliminate the disputes that must arise when people are employed by an employer who is also a Secretary of State.

Mr. Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. The community health councils and those who spoke for them

have made their case. One of the arguments that weighed with me was that community health councils have many members from voluntary bodies. They are often best placed to speak on behalf of the Cinderella services, such as the services for the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the very old. Such people might otherwise not receive the priority treatment that successive Ministers have desired to give them. We shall be issuing a consultative paper on community health councils later in the year.
As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), local decision-making is a crucial part of the reorganisation. We intend to ensure that the people who run the show in the hospitals and in the communities have seniority and experience, and their own budgets, so that they can take decisions on the spot. Such people will include the administrator and senior nurse who might be called the director of nursing services. They will have the authority.
I am surprised at what my hon. Friend said about disputes. We brought to fruition the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) for establishing local disputes procedure. Since I have been in office no industrial dispute has been decided by any Minister in this Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that there is to be a statement by the Secretary of State for Wales. If questions are succinct I shall be able to call more hon. Members.

Mr. Ennals: Does the Secretary of State recognise that most people in the country and in the Health Service will welcome the decision to put right most of the gross errors committed by the present Secretary of State for Industry? Is he aware that most people will also welcome the decision to retain the community health councils? We welcome the tribute that he paid to the administrators, who have done a difficult job.
The Secretary of State referred to decisions being taken at a local level. I agree with the spirit of that. May we have an assurance that the Service will continue to be a National Health Service, with national standards? Many


of the criticisms of "Patients First" implied that the Secretary of State was looking too much towards a hospital-based service as opposed to a community-based service. Will he comment on that criticism, since such a proposition would be a backward step?

Mr. Jenkin: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the main thrust of our proposals. Of course, we have a National Health Service and we shall progressively work towards achieving more national standards through the resources allocation process. The speed at which we can do that depends on the money available. The view that "Patients First" was hospital-orientated was partly due to inadequate drafting and partly due to a misunderstanding by the readers. There was never any intention that it should be so.
If the right hon. Gentleman studies the circular he will discover that it fully endorses what I say. For example, a unit can be a mental illness hospital, the psychiatric community services, and the psychiatric services in a district general hospital. I believe that a more local service will reinforce the general proposition that as many patients as possible should be cared for in the community.

Mr. Paul Dean: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the essential element in his statement is that we can now welcome back the hospital matron and that management decisions will be made in the local hospital and in other places where health care is given? Will my right hon. Friend keep an open mind about having exactly the same pattern of administration throughout the country? Does he accept that in some compact counties, such as Avon, savings on administration and co-operation with a university and with the social services of the county council might be best achieved by having one tier of administration rather than several based on the districts?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's welcome. If a health authority decides, with the consent of the staff, that the senior nurse in a hospital should be called a matron, I shall have no objection. Of course, it is not an appropriate title for a male nurse. I believe that there will be wide support for the proposition that there should be a senior

authoritative chief nursing officer in each hospital to reassert authority.
My whole instinct leans towards the pattern of district health authorities that I outlined in my statement. The over-whelming thrust of representations reinforce that view. Bodies and organisations running the health services on the ground are in favour of that pattern of reorganisation. It will be for the regions to put forward proposals for the structuring in their regions. My hon. Friend and others who have views should put them with all the force that they wish to the regional health authorities so that they can be taken into account.

Mr. Pavitt: The Secretary of State has made a wide-ranging and comprehensive statement, which will affect the whole of the National Health Service. It is the prelude to a number of statutory instruments arising from the Bill that will reach the statute book shortly. May we have an undertaking that the Secretary of State will consult the Leader of the House so that immediately after the recess we may have a full-scale debate on the matters which are too complex for a question-and-answer session?
The regional health authorities are to advise the Secretary of State on the boundaries for the new district health authorities. What is the position of Members of Parliament? Do we make our representations about boundaries to the regional health authorities? Will we have the opportunity, through a Select Committee, for example, to discuss that matter?
Will the Secretary of State say more about coterminosity with the social services departments? The Secretary of State has made a hospital-oriented statement. What will happen to the family practitioner committees? Will they be split up and become part of the district health authorities? In what way will the general practitioner be integrated with the new work? Will there be a further tier at hospital level comprising a committee governing the district general hospital, for example?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome of the proposals. He will know that it was agreed earlier in the year that there should be a full day's debate at some stage which could be linked with the statutory instruments


which carry into effect the first stage of the reorganisation. The precise date is a matter for the Leader of the House.
In the first instance the regions will recommend boundaries after consultation. In the end I shall decide in any case over which there is a dispute.
"Patients First" makes it clear that it would be ideal if it were possible to have a viable district health authority coterminus with its local social services authority. There is wide-spread recognition that in 1974 the principle of coterminosity was elevated to the point where it operated to the detriment of the management of the Health Service.
The question of family practitioner committees will have to be considered when we know the district structures and to what extent it is necessary to make use of the powers in the Bill being considered in another place, which reorganises the family practitioner committees.

Mr. McCrindle: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the welcome moves that he has announced really will lead to a reduction in bureaucracy within the Health Service? Is he aware of the widespread fear that the staffs of the area health authorities will be queueing up to join the newly formed district authorities? Is he aware of the fear that the district authorities might start operating more highly staffed than is strictly necessary? When my right hon. Friend considers the composition of the community health councils, will he take into account the possibility of voluntary bodies being more prominently represented?

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Our settled determination is to reduce the amount of bureaucracy in the National Health Service. We shall impose strict management cost limits and it will not be open to health authorities to overstaff their structures. There is widespread support for the view that voluntary bodies should be more fully represented on CHCs. That is one of the matters on which we shall consult interested bodies later in the year.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am the only hon. Member present who had the pleasure of voting for the Health Service, against the Tories, when it was introduced, and I was

overlooked by you, Mr. Speaker. May I therefore congratulate the Secretary of State on retaining community health councils—a decision that gives my constituents and myself great pleasure? The right hon. Gentleman avoided the question of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) on costs. How many thousands of millions of pounds has "Joseph's folly" cost the Exchequer and the taxpayer? The Government wish to cut expenditure, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can later give us a figure for the cost of "Joseph's folly".

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that his second question, by its nature, is impossible of answer. There is widespread recognition that the structure is over-elaborate and cumbersome, which has hampered decision-making. Some very unkind remarks have been made about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry, but at the same time Labour Members have been swift to praise community health councils. He invented them.

Mr. Hordern: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that when area health authorities were formed during the previous reorganisation of the Health Service the number of administrators increased by about 20,000, which was 25 per cent., in what my right hon. Friend describes as an unduly complicated structure, which the Labour Government did nothing to correct? As area health authorities are to be abolished, may we expect a commensurate reduction in administrators?

Mr. Jenkin: Although in Health Service terms people are called administrators, the great majority are managers. Competent and effective management is essential to manage £ 8 billion or £ 9 billion. We want to make sure that that management works within a structure in which it is possible to manage effectively. I believe that that will mean fewer administrators, which will in no sense reduce the enormous importance to be attached to the administrative function of managing the National Health Service.

Mr. Joseph Dean: As an ex-local authority member of an area health board, may I tell the Secretary of State that his proposals to reduce the number of local authority places from over 30 per cent. to 25 per cent. will be greeted


with dismay? Bearing in mind my recent experience, of which the right hon. Gentleman is aware, does he really believe that his proposals will democratise the Health Service? When I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman on 2 July I pointed out that the chairman of the Yorkshire regional health authority had refused point-blank to let me have, as a Member of Parliament for a Leeds constituency, the proposals that area health authorities were making in response to "Patients First". Sir William Tweddle is answerable to no one, and apart from the refusal I have received only an acknowledgment card. May we be assured that we shall be given more consideration over these proposals?

Mr. Jenkin: There is not universal support for reducing the number of local authority members. However, apart from local authority associations, which wanted a measure of retention or increase, virtually everyone concerned primarily with the Health Service argued for much smaller health authorities and smaller local authority representation. That is the view that we accepted.

Mr. Race: How many?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman will be able to look at the summary of the responses to "Patients First" and make a judgment. Without wishing to comment on the issue raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean), in the light of the consultations, regions have been taking informal soundings in their areas on how they might respond once they saw which way the wind was blowing. Those soundings are informal, purely to inform the administrators at regional level what may come forward. The formal consultations required by the circular that I am issuing today will take place on a wide and public basis, and Members of Parliament are included among those who will have to be consulted.

Mr. Kershaw: May I welcome my right hon. Friend's retention of community health councils, which is a prudent insurance? Will the greater independence that it is proposed to give to local bodies include the possibility of their collaboration with the private sector in medicine, if that seems to them to be a good idea?

Mr. Jenkin: We are consulting the Health Service on how best to bring forward collaboration with the private sector. It is not in the best interest of patients and people generally to maintain the medical apartheid that our predecessors invented. We wish to encourage collaboration in every way possible. I hope that the new local health authorities will be able effectively to carry that forward.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the three Conservative Members who have been standing and four Labour Members.

Mr. Faulds: Has the right hon. Gentleman requested a letter of apology, regret and contrition from his right hon. Friend for having created the chaos, which he has a genius for doing with whatever he touches, by his original reorganisation of the NHS, from which the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to extricate us? If not, should he not?

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that one of the main purposes of my right hon. Friend's reorganisation six years ago was the much closer integration of hospital services, community services and primary care. That has been substantially achieved, and we are building on that achievement.

Dr. Mawhinney: May I congratulate my hon. Friend on his most welcome statement, which is not only moderate and sensible but puts patient care first? Does he plan to say anything about the ambulance service in the near future?

Mr. Jenkin: When my hon. Friend studies the circular he will see that there is a paragraph about services that are currently carried on at area or other levels. It will be for health authorities to make recommendations and to consult on how best those services can be carried on in the new structure. A whole range of options are open to them.

Mr. Race: Will the Secretary of State assure us that when the consultative document on community health councils is issued later this year there will be no proposal to reduce the statutory power of a CHC to refer a hospital closure to the Minister? Will he also assure us that there will be no attempt to reduce the proportion of local authority representatives on


community health councils? Can he confirm that regional health authorities will also be asked to make a 10 per cent. reduction in management costs, notwithstanding the amount of management expenditure that they incur at present?

Mr. Jenkin: With regard to the hon. Gentleman's question about the consultative paper on CHCs, I am sure that he will agree that both the points that he raises are matters on which it would be wise to consult a wide range of people before we determine the matter. It will be for the regions to decide in relation to each of the health authorities for which the management cost limit is imposed, what is the appropriate limit. It would be impossible for me to do that centrally.

Mr. Latham: Since the county of Leicestershire, with 800,000 people, which currently has one area and three district health authorities, will presumably have two or even three district health authorities under the proposals, will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will not allow bureaucratic co-ordinating committees to be set up to deal with the lack of coterminosity?

Mr. Jenkin: The word "flexibility" has shone through a great many of the representations that have been made. We have been asked to leave the maximum flexibility for local health authorities to decide on their own structure. The only statutory requirement will be to have a team of officers at district level and senior managers at hospital and community level, and to have a joint consultative committee. Apart from that, it will be for local health authorities to determine how best to organise their management structure, which will include the matter mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hardy: Is it not clear that, whatever changes are made, the areas that receive an inadequate share of NHS resources will continue to experience severe need? South Yorkshire patients come second. In carrying out the changes, will the Secretary of State guarantee the improvement in provision without which no administrative change can be successful?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not sure that that arises out of the statement, but I refer the hon. Gentleman to the public expen-

diture White Paper, which proposes an increase in resources nationally of nearly 2 per cent. a year up to 1984.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the extent of his consultations on "Patients First" is widely welcomed? What safeguards are there for the district health authorities that disagree with the apportionment they receive from the regional health authority, as happens now, certainly in the Oxford region?

Mr. Jenkin: I have not detected that district health authorities are slow to bring their grievances to the attention of Ministers, either directly or through their Members, and that channel will remain open. In the end, the allocation by the regions must be a matter for them, because otherwise there would be an enormous mass of centralised decision making in my Department.

Mr. McNally: Where do health centres fit in to the right hon. Gentleman's general philosophy on primary care? Will he give an assurance that when an area authority is convinced that, because of low income or social stress, a health centre is needed in a particular area, there will be no attempt by the Government to dissuade it from going ahead?

Mr. Jenkin: Two factors that must dominate in deciding whether a health centre is built are whether there is a demand for it and whether it will be used effectively. If those criteria are satisfied and the resources are available, a health centre may be built. But too many health centres have stood empty or been used for other purposes. That is why we are taking a more cautious view on the building of health centres.

Mr. Moyle: No doubt the Secretary of State will agree that, apart from looking after patients first, one of the major arguments for reorganising the NHS is to improve staff morale. A series of officers of health authorities—laundry officers, catering officers, works officers and those in personnel and medical records, together with some nurses—are being organised on a functional basis, which is to be swept away. They will be placed in district health authorities without a structured organisation underneath them. What action does the right hon.


Gentleman intend to take to protect those groups?
The right hon. Gentleman did not answer a question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). Will he institute a staff commission to look after the staff? After all, we calculate—and I should like the right hon. Gentleman's confirmation—that about 4,500 management jobs in the NHS in England are likely to go.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposal to subject community health councils to continual review will be regarded in the country as a rather clumsy attempt, which will fail, to emasculate bodies that should be essentially independent if they are to do their job. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his fragmented approach to the future planning of health services in London is not carrying the people of London and that that will lay up trouble for the future?
Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the problems of community and social service planning? The organisation that he has introduced has made that much more difficult by moving away from coterminosity, reducing the number of local authority representatives on health authorities and making the institution of joint planning machinery between the two groups much more difficult. Is he aware that some district health authorities, covering populations of 150,000, will be too small to do their job?

Mr. Jenkin: The action to protect the groups to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is the subject of negotiation in the special negotiating group to which I referred. The question of a staff commission has been raised with me by the unions, but I am extremely loth to go for the sort of cumbersome, bureaucratic staff commission that was set up under the 1973 Act. I am certainly prepared to consider a national appeals procedure for the few cases that cannot be resolved through the regional appeals machinery.
There will not be a continuous review of CHCs. I said that it would be right to look at them again after some years. The councils can plan for the next few years on the basis that they have a clear function to perform.
We have been over the ground on the provision of health services in London,

and I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's views. I want to see reorganisation in London taking place, if possible, within the same time scale that applies to the rest of the country. The massive public inquiry that the Labour Party is advocating would make that impossible.
As for planning with social services, the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's question is that, if we are to keep a whole number of one-to-one coterminosity arrangements with every local authority, the NHS will retain its existing over-cumbersome, bureaucratic structure. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.

Dr. M. S. Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you whether, when future statements affecting England are made and we are promised by the Leader of the House that later statements will be made for Wales and Scotland, you will make that clear to us beforehand so that those of us who represent Scottish constituencies will know where we stand? Even those of us who represent Scottish constituencies have general interests affecting the NHS and we should like to have been brought into the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings. I made the offer to the House earlier that I would call hon. Members from all parts of the United Kingdom. It was brushed aside and the demand for another statement continued. Another statement is about to be made, and the House has been given an assurance that there will be a statement on Scotland next week. I felt that I had better confine myself to calling those who represent English constituencies, and even so many English Members have not been called.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a point that I have raised on a number of previous occasions. I thank you if you have used your influence in getting the statement of the Secretary of State for Social Services deposited in the Vote Office today. You have demonstrated your sympathetic support for statements to be deposited in the Vote Office when they are made by a Minister to the House.
It was of assistance to have today's statement put in the Vote Office. The process was relatively painless for the


Government—at least as regards the depositing of the statement—and was helpful to Back Benchers. If you used your influence, Mr. Speaker, I urge you to continue to use it with other Ministries so that, as a matter of routine, most major statements are put in the Vote Office when they are made. It is a step forward and should be marked as such.

Mr. Speaker: I should tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the virtue that he attributes to me belongs to the Leader of the House, because the statement was not deposited in the Vote Office as a result of pressure from me.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As a mere Englishman I am sorry to prolong the proceedings, but we are setting an unfortunate precedent if, when a statement is made by a United Kingdom Minister, statements on similar lines have to be made by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. I object to that. It is not in conformity with the best traditions of Parliament, and I hope that it will not happen again.

Mr. Speaker: With the name that the hon. Gentleman has the privilege of enjoying, he might have claimed to be Welsh.

Mr. Parry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for you to call Members from the regions? We on Merseyside have hospitals being closed at a rate exceeded only by the rate of unemployment in Liverpool.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be intolerable if I am to be told that I must go into almost every constituency. The hon. Gentleman is not being fair to me. I have to think of the rest of the House. I called an hon. Member from Lancashire, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) will see if he looks at the list.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (WALES)

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): With permission, I should like to make a statement on changes in the organisation and management of the National Health Service in Wales.
I have today published a statement "The Structure and Management of the National Health Service in Wales" which sets out my preliminary conclusions following the consultations on "Patients First". I emphasise that these are preliminary conclusions, and, in effect, this is a consultative document.
It reaffirms my intention that responsibility for managing the Service should be delegated as close as possible to the point at which patient services are provided by creating a new system of strong health management units at local level. I confirm also that community health councils are to be retained, as are the existing arrangements for administering family practitioner services. There has not been general support for the view that it is not necessary for Wales, in its particular circumstances, to suffer the upheaval of breaking up the existing eight area health authorities in order to get the benefits of good management. It is evident, however, that many people have not understood the full implications of the proposal to delegate management authority to health units. I have therefore concluded that before I make final decisions there should be further opportunity for comment in the light of the explanations in the statement and of local consultations about the pattern of health units. I am also inviting further comment on the arrangements at an all-Wales level, where I propose to set up an advisory Welsh health council comprising representatives of the health authorities, the professions and the Welsh National School of Medicine. My intention is that the council should meet in public, thus facilitating public awareness of debates on major health issues. I also propose to promote further co-operative working between health authorities.
I wish to minimise continuing uncertainties, particularly for NHS staff, so I am asking that further comments be submitted to me by 31 December, and I would then hope to publish final decisions early in 1981.

Mr. Alec Jones: First, I hope that the Secretary of State has learnt a valuable lession this afternoon that, in the discussion of matters as important as this, it is not on to try to get away with it by dealing with it in a planted written question by an hon. Member who is not even present in the House. This is seen by Opposition Members as a matter of some considerable discourtesy, because my hon. Friends have still not been able to obtain a copy of the parliamentary answer that the Secretary of State read out so eloquently, or a copy of the statement to which his answer refers.
Certainly, the Opposition welcome the decision to retain the community health councils in Wales, but we still suspect that these councils will have insufficient teeth. I notice that in his statement the Secretary of State for Social Services indicated that a consultation paper would be issued about the community health councils, their powers, their role and their membership. I would hope that there would be a similar consultation paper for Wales.
What consideration was given more fully to integrate the family practitioner committees into the area health authorities? I recall that when the NHS was reorganised in its present structure this matter demanded some attention.
I believe that the decision to set up an advisory Welsh health council is at least a step in the right direction, but I wonder why the Secretary of State has decided not to have an all-Wales health authority. Why not give the Welsh health council the powers that regional health authorities exercise in England?
Finally, I understand that the Secretary of State's statement indicates that there will be further discussion before the pattern of the health units is decided. All the arguments put forward this afternoon by the Secretary of State for Social Services apply equally in England as they do in Wales. If England is to have locally based district health authorities, why should this not apply to Wales as well? We would like a much fuller explanation of that point.
The English statement referred to the present NHS structure as "unduly complicated". We do not want such a structure for Wales, but I am not convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's statement does much to ensure that we do not get it.

Mr. Edwards: I assure the House that I was not attempting to get away with anything in not making a statement in the House. Genuine problems occur when there are three different Ministers responsible for similar subjects. We do not want to overload the House. The reason why I had not intended to make a statement is that we are issuing a new consultative document and there will be plenty of opportunity for hon. Members to make representations and debate the issues. I did not think that it was the best way forward to deal with the issues that are handled in this document simply by a quick exchange across the Floor of the House. I am not announcing any final decisions about the structure of the NHS in Wales this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to community health councils having insufficient teeth. We propose, in at least one major respect, that they should be given an important new role. We are suggesting that in Wales they should establish sub-committees to work very closely with the new health units at local level so that we can inject into the management of the health units at local level a real participation by local people through the community health councils. This is an interesting development. We are putting forward suggestions and we shall welcome people's views. This is a real step forward and a major new role for CHCs in Wales.
On the question of family practitioner services, I do not believe that we received significant representations on this point in the round that we have had so far.
On the question of the regional body, there is a real difference between the situations in Wales and England. The relationship of the Minister with 14 different regions is clearly very different from that of the Secretary of State who has overall responsibility for the Health Service generally. He cannot step aside from the situation in Wales and his responsibility covers precisely the same area as the regions. There is the problem of avoiding unnecessary duplication of these two roles. The view has been held in the past that it would be a duplication of services and an unnecessary complication to set up a full-blown regional health authority. None the less, wide representations were made to us about


the fact that the strategic role of the Welsh Office was insufficiently understood and appreciated, and there was insufficient opportunity for public debate of strategic decisions for Wales as a whole. We are trying to meet this difficulty by producing a committee that will come up from the health services underneath, so that the main constituent members of it will be the chairmen of the area health authorities. Others will be involved as well, including the medical profession. The committee will meet in public and will provide a forum for advice and debate that will be very valuable. This is a new proposal. We did not touch on it in our previous proposals and there will be every opportunity for consultation on it.
On the question of the pattern of health units and the structure of the NHS in Wales, we propose a precisely similar pattern at the lower level to that in England. We are not attempting to duplicate the districts, but the Welsh areas that we propose will be similar in size and role to the new districts in England. We propose exactly the same structure of powerful units between them, with the same management responsibilities and the same involvement in budgetary and administrative control at local level. We seek to achieve exactly the same ends in Wales as we hope to achieve in England.
I plead guilty to one mistake which has led to some of the misunderstandings. We did not publish a full document originally. By including a short passage in "Patients First" we have brought about some misunderstanding of our objectives, and that is precisely why we want to set the position out clearly and give the opportunity for a further round of consultation.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. However, does he not agree that the discussions hold out a real hope, not only for Wales but for the rest of the United Kingdom, of an improvement in standards of service to patients? In particular, I welcome the suggestion of my right hon. Friend that community health councils should work in close contact with the new units.
I do not wish to raise the temperature, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that it is, perhaps, unfortunate that the

Opposition should have chosen to create such an incident of the way in which this statement was made? I ask that particularly because the Labour Party has just published a draft manifesto which scarcely contains a reference to Wales at all.

Mr. Edwards: My hon. Friend's credentials entitling him to speak on Welsh affairs are unchallenged. I believe that the relationship that we propose between the community health councils and the new units offers an opportunity for local participation in the running of hospital, medical and related services. That is an important step forward.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the reasons why we feel strongly that discourtesy has been displayed to us is that the consultative document referred to has not been placed even in the Vote Office? We are entitled to at least the same rights as people outside the House.
Turning to the contents of the statement, we feel that the advisory Welsh health council should have a strong and significant lay representation. Representation should not be confined to chairmanships of area health authorities. There should, possibly, be representatives on that advisory body from the community health councils. The AHCs represent the patient at the most obvious local level.
After the Secretary of State's statement, and his subsequent answers, we are confused about the exact relationship that will exist between area health authorities, whose powers we understand will be totally untouched, and the district health teams and structure. Has not the right hon. Gentleman received considerable representations to the effect that the district structure is closest to the needs, wishes and feelings of the local community and that power should be devolved from the powerful area health authorities to district authorities and that, as has happened in the past, the responsibilities of district authorities should not be whittled away?
I hope that the Secretary of State intends to make clear exactly what the relationship between area and district will be.

Mr. Edwards: The council that we propose, and about which we are inviting


representations, would include representatives of all the health authorities, the main professions and the Welsh National School of Medicine. The council will advise on strategic decisions and we think that it is right that its prime constituents should come from area health authorities which have responsibility in their parts of Wales.
On the matter of the relationship between area health authorities, districts and units, we believe that the proper way forward is to replace the existing district by strong management units. We contemplate that there will probably be about 50 such units in Wales which will be truly local and be related to the main hospital facilities of an area.
Such bodies would have a strong management role, with overall responsibility to the area authorities. But there will be real delegation of power and responsibility to the unit. Given that situation, with strong units, it is not self-evident that one could easily fit in an intervening round of districts. There are many parts of Wales where, if we did that, the obvious unit would be the existing district. In my own constituency I think it likely that the natural unit would be based on Withybush hospital and the facilities in South Pembrokeshire and Preseli. Therefore, we would have a direct overlap between the district and the unit, which does not seem to make sense. We are putting forward proposals based on the existing structure of area health authorities, but with strong delegaton of powers to units.
However, to enable people to understand and assess the situation properly, we are asking the area health authorities to begin consultation now so that they can publish their plans for units in their areas. Thus, people will be able to make judgments about the area and district structure against the background of a known, planned pattern of units. I think that that is the sensible way forward, but I emphasise that we attach great importance to unit management.

Mr. Best: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving such a full reply to what was, essentially, my written question to him. That question prompted this discussion. May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to two matters in the document? I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that we must

study it in closer detail before making any full comment on it.

Mr. Alec Jones: Where did you get it from?

Mr. Best: Some hon. Members are more assiduous than others.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) is referring to a document which some Opposition Members have not seen. Is it in order for the hon. Member to refer to a document that we have not had the opportunity of examining?

Mr. Best: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that there is a copy of the document on the board available to every Welsh hon. Member. If the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has not gone to the board to collect his copy, that is a matter for him.

Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left the board scarcely a minute before the Secretary of State rose. There was no copy of that document on the board for me.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I regret that I have no knowledge of the document to which the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) is referring, or even whether it refers to the Secretary of State's statement.

Mr. Best: If my use of the document causes difficulty I shall not refer to it. I turn to the issue of lay involvement. As I understand my right hon. Friend, he is saying that he wishes to see community health councils taking a greater role at unit management level. I understand that he contemplates, subject to consultation, appointing additional lay members to area health authorities. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that that is the case? If it is, I certainly welcome the proposal. I am sure that many other hon. Members will welcome a greater lay involvement in the management of the NHS in Wales. On many occasions, lay people feel that they are kept away from the management of the Health Service.

Mr. Edwards: In relation to the points of order just raised, it was intended to provide information by a written answer. Papers; were sent out to go on the board


at 4 pm and I am sorry if hon. Members have not had the chance to collect their copies. We intended to get copies into the hands of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen at the earliest opportunity. It is precisely because this is a major consultative document that people will wish to consider it carefully. For that reason, we thought that the best way forward was to issue the document and allow people to think about it before we became involved in a series of exchanges.
We do not propose to make major changes in the membership of the area health authorities, although there may be some room for adjustment in size. I think that there is room for an interesting experiment in the involvement of community health councils in local management. By involving the community health councils in the affairs of their local units, I believe that lay participation will thus be brought into the Health Service at its most sensitive point. That is the point nearest to the patients.

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been out to check the board. It appears that a wedge of envelopes arrived there but there was no indication that they were urgent or immediate. Therefore, they have been put into the post. That is not the fault of the attendants. There was no indication as to the urgency of the material. How is it that one Back Bench member has a copy when the copies intended for the rest of us are lost in the post? Will you investigate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is an unfortunate matter, but it is not one of order for the Chair. The document is not essential. I am sorry that it is not available, but it is not for me to make documents of this nature available. The Secretary of State said that it was a consultative document. There is a heavy programme of business before the House and therefore I suggest that short answers and short questions will help.

Mr. Ioan Evans: We understand that the question was planted and that, since the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) planted it, he should receive a planted answer—

Mr. Best: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it within the rules of order for one hon. Member to accuse another of acting as some sort of Government lackey—[Hon. Members: "Yes."]—The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) may have been an unfortunate recipient of that treatment at some time in the past, but I hope that he will not accuse me of such action now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have heard the phrase "planted question", but I do not really know what it is.

Mr. Evans: If I have accused the hon. Member for Anglesey of being approached by the Welsh Office or someone in it to table a question and that has not happened. I am prepared to withdraw the accusation. I should prefer that he rose to deny the allegation before I withdrew it, however.
I realise that the Secretary of State has made an ad hoc statement. Welsh Members have a right, when the Secretary of State for Social Services makes a statement in respect of England, to have a statement dealing with Wales.
Since this is an interim statement, will the Secretary of State for Wales, when he has preperaed his final recommendations, make that statement to the House? Why did the Secretary of State for Social Services make an eight-page statement when the Secretary of State for Wales has made one only half a page long? Is the Secretary of State for Wales covering the same topics as his right hon. Friend?
Since there is strong support for the community health councils, in reaching his conclusions will the Secretary of State for Wales ensure that they are retained in the new structure? The earlier statement contained a reference to the possibility of a change in this respect in the long term.
Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that if management costs are reduced the money that is allocated to the Health Service will be maintained at existing levels? If the advisory health council for Wales is set up will it replace any existing bodies? Is it to be a Government quango? If it is to be an advisory body, will those serving on it be drawn from existing bodies in the NHS in Wales?

Mr. Edwards: I can give the undertaking that when we reach firm conclusions to put before the House about the pattern of the Health Service I shall make a statement to the House about them. We had not intended to do so today, only because we were issuing a consultative document. That is also why my statement is different from that of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services who has announced a lot of firm conclusions for the Health Service in England. If the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) wants to compare the size of statements, he should bear in mind that I have issued a consultative document, the English language version of which runs to 23 pages. We can double that figure if we include the Welsh language version. The hon. Member cannot complain, therefore, about the amount that he is getting.
We have made it clear that we intend to retain the community health councils. That is firm, not provisional. Their role is being strengthened at unit level.
It is clearly to the advantage of the Health Service if it can reduce its administrative costs in every way. That will leave more money to be spent on patient care, and we all ought to be in favour of that. The all-Wales body will basically be composed of representatives of the area health authorities and of the professions, but that is a matter about which we are consulting in the document.

Mr. Ray Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has abused the House by not presenting a proper statement? It is impossible for us to examine the booklet today or to go through his statement in detail. If the closing date for consultation is to be 31 December, and if the bodies that he is to consult will be similar to those he consulted in respect of his first consultative document, when will he be able to inform the House or the Welsh Grand Committee of his final proposals?

Mr. Edwards: It is because there are difficulties in issuing a long and major consultative document that there is something to be said for simply issuing it and letting people consider it before we embark upon question and answer across the Floor of the House. I shall always come to the House when I have firm

conclusions on which to be questioned. I sometimes wonder whether it is not to the benefit of the House, with consultative documents, for hon. Members to be given time to consider them and then to have the chance to debate them in the Welsh Grand Committee or somewhere else.
We shall complete our consultation by 31 December and announce our decisions early in the new year.

Dr. Roger Thomas: I am sure that Welsh Office Ministers will not be surprised that there is resentment in Wales that in the document "Patients First" Wales was dismissed in two comparatively short and complex paragraphs. As the only Welsh Member to sit on the Standing Committee examining the Health Services Bill, which is now being discussed in another place, I received a deluge of communications from all parts of Wales. The theme of those communications was a desire to get rid of area health authorities, just as they are being abolished in England. I cannot understand why the Minister says that we in Wales should still have to tolerate these authorities, representing as they do an extra tier of administration.

Mr. Edwards: I have already acknowledged that I think that we made a mistake in not issuing a separate consultative document at the first round, which is why I have decided to issue one now. We have received for the first time a whole range of representation—the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas) was involved in this—about the all-Wales area. This is a totally new area, on which we wish to take opinions.
I think that it was precisely because we failed to make clear the strength and pattern of the units and their possible duplication with the district pattern that some of the representations were made on that aspect. I want to consult people on the basis of a unit pattern so that they put forward their views with a clear understanding of exactly what is proposed and what that will involve in their districts. We received many more representations from Dyfed than from the rest of Wales put together, and the hon. Member for Carmarthen will understand that. In our document we particularly asked for further views about the position in Dyfed.

CONSETT STEELWORKS COMMON OWNERSHIP

Mr. David Watkins: I beg to move.
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to transfer the British Steel Corporation works at Consett to the control of the people working there; and for purposes connected therewith.
The background to my Bill is that the British Steel Corporation is proposing to close its Consett works at the end of September. It is a viable and profitable works, with productivity among the best in Europe. If it were closed, 3,700 steel workers' jobs would be lost, plus many more in associated occupations. There is great opposition locally to that proposal, which is not surprising. With unemployment already at 14.9 per cent. in the area and rising, the consequences of the closure would be devastating.
It is coincidental, but important and worth mentioning, that on the very day that I seek the leave of the House to introduce the Bill the representatives of the Consett steel workers are meeting the representatives of the British Steel Corporation in Middlesbrough to present their plans for the survival of the works. That is the background to the Bill.
The Bill would establish a new enterprise. It might even revive a famous old name, the Consett Iron Company. It would not revive the old days when Consett was a classic example of a company town. The new company would reverse the old process of company dictatorship. It would be democratically owned and controlled by people working in it. As such a high proportion of people in Consett work there, it would be a notable example of local democracy.
In accordance with the terms of the Bill, the constitution of the enterprise would accord with section 2 of that powerful and pioneering piece of legislation, the Industrial Common Ownership Act 1976. I say with due modesty that I had the privilege of introducing that legislation as a Private Member's Bill, and of piloting it to the statute book with all-party support. The Bill would require the registrar to issue a certificate approving the new company as a body without share capital, limited by guarantee, and a bona fide co-operative society.
The registrar would also require to be satisfied that only persons employed there would be members, and that the rules would guarantee the right of all employees to be members with equal voting rights at meetings of the body. The Bill would contain provisions to ensure a continuing relationship with the British Steel Corporation,, but on a basis of mutual co-operation.
I turn to the financial aspects. No public expenditure would be involved. On the contrary, there would be a large saving. The Govenment have already announced, and are committed to, an expenditure of £ 12 million to attempt to encourage new industries into the Consett area, and a further £ 10 million to clear the site of the steelworks. If the works were closed there would be additional expenditure of more than £ 30 million in redundancy payments, plus large and continuing social security payments. I remind the House that the estimated Exchequer figure is that every unemployed family man costs Britain at least £ 4,000 a year.
The consequences of the closure, not only in immediate expenditure but in continuing social expenditure, would be very high indeed. The Bill would avoid that taking place. The same amount of money would effect the transfer of ownership, but there would be no actual physical expenditure of money. It would be a straightforward bookkeeping transaction.
I wish to emphasise strongly that the Bill would create an enterprise entirely different from the so-called workers' co-operatives. There are two great differences. First, the co-operatives were endeavours to save loss-making products of private ownership. The Bill is an endeavour to retain a viable, highly productive plant, and to maintain it in genuine public ownership. Secondly, the so-called co-operatives in reality never were co-operatives. They did not have bona fide legally defined co-operative constitutions. The new Consett Iron Company, as proposed in the Bill, would have precisely such a constitution.
I remind the House that since the 1976 Act there has been a rapid growth of common ownership enterprises in Britain. About 300 are registered at present. The Bill would extend that democratic form of ownership to a viable works whose


local management and work force have proved already that they can meet any reasonable challenge with which they are confronted. The Bill would extend that democratic form of ownership to a works whose survival is vital to the future of an entire community. In view of those facts, I hope that the House will grant me leave to introduce the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Watkins, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Ernest Armstrong, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Jack Dormand, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Bill Homewood, Mr. Mark Hughes, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. James Tinn, Mr. Tom Urwin and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

Consett Steelworks

Common Ownership

Mr. David Watkins: Mr. David Watkins accordingly presented a Bill to transfer the British Steel Corporation works at Consett to the control of the people working there; and for purposes connected therewith: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 256.]

Mr. Mark Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Clearly there is no opposition to the Bill. No hon. Member in the House wishes to impede its progress. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I urge the Leader of the House to indicate that Government time will be given for the further consideration of the Bill at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): That is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure that that point will have been noted by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill is certainly not without support on the Conservative side of the House. When the Leader of the House is considering whether to put it through as soon as possible, will he bear in mind that there is support on this side of the House also?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Bill had been without support the hon. Gentleman would have had the opportunity to oppose it had he so wished.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. John Nott): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Although the Third Reading of this Bill has been awarded prime debating time, I do not think that it is an occasion for a Second Reading speech on civil aviation generally. Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would call me to order if I were to attempt to make it so. The Bill has already been discussed in considerable detail, and in a most constructive spirit, on both sides of the House. My chosen task in opening the short debate today will be to highlight one or two aspects of the Bill that merit public attention and employee interest—that is, the employees of British Airways.
Part I of the Bill deals with British Airways—our prime national flag carrier—and provides the legislative framework for a change in the status of the airline to accommodate an injection of private sector equity capital—as well as greater freedom of operation for the management.
British Airways is not a monopoly. It has to operate in an international market which is highly competitive and at the forefront of technological progress. The best way for the Government to ensure British Airways continued success in that market is to provide management with full commercial freedom to take and implement its own decisions. It is that freedom which will offer British Airways the best chance for continued success and profitability. As I made clear from the outset, my colleagues and I no longer wish to stand in judgment over the detailed running of the business, take decisions on the amounts that British Airways should invest, what aircraft it should buy, and the amounts it may borrow. I want to get the Treasury off the back of British Airways. All these controls will be abolished when the Bill is implemented, and I am convinced that the airline's future prospects, and therefore those of its employees and customers, will be better for it.
Although part I of the Bill contains the legislative framework for the change of status to a company on an appointed day, we intend to retain complete flexibility about the timing of the sale of shares.
The international civil aviation market is at present going through a difficult time, due largely to the rapid increase in fuel prices over the last year or so, together with some falling off in demand for air travel. British Airways has not escaped these problems, and the results for 1979-80, which will be announced shortly, will fall considerably below what the board had earlier expected. British Airway's continues to face problems in the current year and, as the House will know, the board has developed a plan of action to maximise profits and maintain its competitive position.
The industry faced similar problems before in the mid-1970s, and British Airways showed its ability to recover then. In the past few years, airline traffic has grown at an average of 8 per cent. per annum, and I do not believe that the present difficulties will be long-lived. I am confident that when the market does recover British Airways has the right plans and the right policies to continue to operate profitably and to achieve a successful flotation The earliest possible date for such a flotation would be the summer of 1981. However, I emphasise again that it is too early to take any decisions. We have no commitment to any particular date, and we shall continue to preserve flexibility on this issue.
Throughout the debates on the Bill, my hon. Friends and the official Opposition have rightly raised many points about the interests of the employees, and in particular about employee shareholding. In my statement on 20 July last year I said:
special arrangements will be made to enable employees of British Airways to take up shares in the enterprise should they wish to participate in its future and share in its growth."—[Official Report, 20 July 1979; Vol. 970, c. 2183.]
That is our intention. We believe that the employees should be given the opportunity to acquire a more tangible stake in the company and should be able to do so on favourable terms. We are working out four ways of making employees into shareholders. The principal

offer that we would like to make to the employees of British Airways is to make "two shares for the price of one" available on the same lines as the recent BP offer. The idea is that for every share that an employee is willing to buy at the ordinary offer price, another share will be given to him free, provided that both shares are held by trustees. The value of the free share will then not be subject to income tax. Under the new concessions in clause 46 of the Finance Bill the shares need be held by the trustees only for a minimum period of two years instead of five years under the Finance Act 1978. If the employee decides to withdraw his shares from the trustees and sell them during the next five years, the tax concession is wholly or partially withdrawn.
The Finance Bill also raises the maximum value of shares which can be given to an employee in any one year from £ 500 to £ 1,000. I hope that a large number of British Airways employees with more than a qualifying period of service will take advantage of this bargain offer—which could entitle them to a substantial investment of up to £ 2,000 at about half the offer price to outside shareholders, and with considerable tax advantages in train.

Mr. John Smith: Perhaps the Secretary of State will be good enough to explain why this announcement, which appears to me to be quite a new matter, was not announced earlier by the Government so that it could have been considered in detail and with care by hon. Members, sitting both as a House and in Committee. It is extremely odd that the Government should produce a new statement at the last gasp of consideration in the House of Commons. I submit that that is not a proper way to treat Parliament.

Mr. Nott: I do not think that that is correct. When the proposals for the British Airways employee shareholdings were discussed in Committee my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said that the development of our ideas must wait until we saw what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor presented in his Budget. We now know that he made two valuable tax concessions available in the Budget to encourage growth of employee shareholdings in general. I thought that it was appropriate to give


notice now of our intentions. I intended this to be helpful, and I am not quite sure why the right hon. Gentleman should consider it unhelpful to give favourable news to the House. I am sorry, but I am slightly lost.

Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand what I am driving at, which is that it is the responsibility of Parliament to consider what the Government say. Despite his fleeting appearances during discussion of the various stages of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we have spent two days on Report discussing the matter since the Budget was announced. In addition, it is open to the Secretary of State to make a statement, or to answer a written question, at any time he likes. The truth is that he has put this forward at the last gasp of consideration in the House of Commons. With respect, I believe that to be wrong.

Mr. Nott: I do not think that there was any obligation to put forward the details of what the share offers to employees might be in the event of a flotation. I merely thought that it would be helpful to the House if I did so now. Had the right hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment on Report—[Interruption.] I am trying to help the right hon. Gentleman by giving notice of something which at the earliest can conceivably happen only in the summer of 1981. Therefore, I do not think that he has anything to complain about.
Secondly, the Finance Bill contains provisions for savings-related share option schemes in clause 47 and schedule 10. We are working on an offer which will take advantage of these provisions.
Thirdly, we would intend to have a system of priority allotment for as many shares as any employees care to subscribe for at the full price, although we would caution employees not to commit too great a proportion of their savings to any one investment.
Finally, we would propose also to make a free offer of shares to all eligible employees, whether they subscribe their own money or not, of up to about £ 50 worth of shares per employee. Naturally, the figures and details for all these offers can be worked out precisely only in the prospectus, when we know the price at which

the shares will be sold and the full financial facts.
All these proposals are within the responsibility of the Government, as the seller of the shares initially, but I am glad to inform the House that British Airways itself intends to work out an employee share ownership and profit sharing scheme for the successor company. This will mean that employees with 10, 20 or more years' service will build up quite a large shareholding in the company.
I hope that the House will feel that I have given enough detail at this stage to make it quite clear that we mean business, and that we intend to play our part in helping the employees of British Airways to identify themselves with the airline's fortunes. After all, British Airways is nothing if it is not about those who work in the airline, from the chairman to the youngest stewardess or most junior clerk.
There are still details to be settled, such as the qualifying period of service and whether there should be an upper ceiling on the total percentage of the shares which might be in the hands of employees, on which we are still happy to receive the views of the staff representatives. I would also be happy, as I have been throughout the progress of the Bill, to discuss this or any other matter with the British Airways trade unions. If they wish to change their position and offer their advice, we shall be glad to receive it and consider it.

Mr. Clinton Davis: From the discussions that he has had with the interested parties, has the right hon. Gentleman been able to form an approximate judgment—I cannot ask for more than that—as to the proportion of the shares that are likely to be acquired by or on behalf of the employees?

Mr. Nott: It is impossible to judge that at this stage. We do not know what the profits of British Airways will be at the time. At present, we do not know the timing of the share issue. As I said, we want to keep this flexible. We do not yet know what the price may be. Those are all factors which would be relevant to a decision by the employees as to whether they might wish to put a small proportion of their savings into the airline. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question at this stage. It is simply not


possible to give an answer to that question.
Turning to part II of the Bill, I should like to deal first with the removal of the Secretary of State's power to give guidance to the CAA. I note that it formed a major part of the debate on Report on 7 July, which, sadly, I missed.
The Civil Aviation Act 1971—a Conservative measure which established the CAA—adopted the novel method of regulating a statutory undertaking by the issue of ministerial guidance. Experience of the guidance over the last nine years has shown that it is a highly unsatisfactory legislative tool. Even a superficial glance at the two policy guidance documents issued in 1972 and 1976 reveals that the majority of the guidance consists of no more than what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and the industry have come to call "motherhood clauses", urging the CAA to do a good job and to use its common sense. More damagingly, where the guidance has sought to go beyond the terms of the 1971 Act, or where it has attempted to remedy deficiencies in that Act, it has run the risk of being torpedoed by the ultra vires test applied by the courts. That is not to suggest that those parts of the policy guidance which were subsequently overthrown by the courts had mischievous intentions. It is simply that the power to give guidance suffers from the insuperable defect of either saying nothing useful or saying what ought to be set out in the Civil Aviation Act. The criticism that we are giving undue power to the CAA is in reality a criticism that we are requiring the Act to say what Parliament intends rather than leaving it to ministerial rules. In future, primary legislation will clearly predominate. I hope that the House will consider this a matter of constitutional propriety rather than the opposite.
Thus, part II sets out the broad objectives and functions of the authority. To remove any doubts, I must make it clear that the CAA will continue to undertake research and development work, to provide expert advice to aid British exporters, and to seek to improve safety standards. The need for those functions stems directly from the CAA's basic role as the regulatory authority for civil aviation in this country. It is not the Government's

intention that the Bill should make any change in the basic pattern of the CAA's activities.
So I come to the second major purpose of part II, which is to give the interests of consumers—airline travellers—a more prominent place among the CAA's objectives. The CAA's duty to further the reasonable interest of users of air transport services will no longer be subordinated to the authority's other objectives but will be on an equal footing. The Government took the opportunity of introducing the new section 23A on Report because of an uncertainty in some quarters as to the power of the CAA to take full account of the benefits to consumers arising from competition. As I have already said, I read with great interest the proceedings of the debate that took place on 7 July.
The purpose of the amendment was to make clear beyond doubt that the CAA can, and should, take account of the benefits of having two or more operators on a route, and ensure that the interests of consumers—the airline passengers—are at the forefront of the Civil Aviation Authority's objectives when deciding licensing applications. The dramatic change in the price levels of fares on the North Atlantic route and in the variety of services offered to passengers on that route followed directly from the introduction of a proper measure of competition.
It is my firm belief that a similar change will become evident on the London to Hong Kong route. Indeed, I understand that Cathay Pacific's new service, with a very much cheaper bookable ticket than was available previously, has already stimulated 7,000 advance bookings, and British Airways' even cheaper firecracker ticket is fully taken up for a fortnight in advance.
It may be—I put it no higher than that—that my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith), who described as "blarney" the notion that low fares would attract more airline passengers, is proved just as wrong as his predecessor the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), when he said in respect of Skytrain:
having regard to the existing facilities that are available for cheap travel, it would confer no


really worthwhile benefits to the consumer." —[Official Report, 11 February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 443.]
I do not think that any one can claim that Skytrain and the lower North Atlantic fares have not been of benefit to the consumer. In the same way, I hope that the 7,000 advance bookings which Cathay Pacific has already taken for the Hong Kong route augur well for a similar useful encouragement to airline travellers from cheaper fares on the Far East route. I believe that there is a large untapped market of people who will travel if there is an attractive price on offer. In the future, I believe that the CAA will take the initiative in identifying opportunities where competition would open up air travel to a much wider public.
However, before concluding I must add a note of caution. Regulation by Governments is a fact of life in the aviation world at the present time. The United Kingdom cannot force other Governments to loosen the constraints of regulation. All that we can attempt to do is to persuade other Governments to follow our course. There is no question of an "open skies" policy being introduced by this Bill, because it is not in our power, acting unilaterally, to bring such a situation into being—even if we wish to.
Meanwhile, it is the Government's intention to keep up pressure on other Governments, particularly in Europe. Government shareholdings in national airlines, as in many European countries, should not deny air travellers the benefits of competition which apply in other industries.
This country is sometimes lectured, sermonised and patronised—admittedly mainly on a private basis—by my colleagues from other European member States and by the Commission about our alleged protectionist bias—a charge that is constantly levelled at me, and no doubt may surprisingly be made against the right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North. Yet when we seek to open up competition in areas where we are in an ascendant position, we find a total incapacity, or unwillingness, to follow our lead.
I shall take Germany first. I often wonder why, for instance, Count Lambsdorff, the German Economic Minister, is unable to persuade his Transport colleague of the benefits of competition in air transport, when he would not be slow to chide

me for my alleged lack of enthusiasm for competition in trade that is damaging British interests. The German delegation is among the most restrictionist when we discuss this question in Europe. I fail to understand why Germany, of all countries, which privately is not beyond lecturing us here and there, should not wish to see further liberalisation of air fares in the interests of the air traveller.
Then there are the French. I am beginning to enjoy my speech. It has been a considerable disappointment to me—and indeed to the travelling public—that the French Government have recently refused to accept innovative fares between London and Paris which have recently been proposed by British Caledonian and British Airways. Now I hear—we had hoped that it would not be the case—that the Dutch have turned down a low British fare to Amsterdam.

Mr. John Wells: As my right hon. Friend clearly hates the Dutch, why does he not do something about the unfair competition of Dutch tomatoes?

Mr. Nott: I love all the human race, particularly any member of the human race who was fortunate enough to be born within the European Economic Community. I think that tomatoes are rather more the area of my right hon. Friend than me.
We shall keep up pressure on European Governments to get the best deal on fares. For example, we are currently in discussion with the Belgians. And my Department, together with the CAA, has been firm in resisting unjustified fare increases that have been proposed by other European airlines and Governments. At the same time, we have been examining what initiatives we can usefully take within the EEC to advance our objective of lower fares in Europe. At a meeting of the European Community Ministers of Transport last month we secured agreement to a British proposal for an examination of air fares. The first meeting of national experts is to take place later this week. We shall argue that this work should be pressed ahead quickly, with the practical interests of the air traveller in the forefront of discussion.
At the same time, a Community study of the scope for liberalising cross-border services, other than those between two


capitals, and the better utilisation of regional airports, is going ahead. Here our objective is to make it easier for airlines to develop new routes, and to develop innovative fares, with a minimum of control by Governments.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that charity begins at home. Would he like to comment on the fact that it now costs as much to go to Newcastle and back as it does to go to Hong Kong?

Mr. Nott: It would, of course, be admirable if the Newcastle-London route were not such a thin route in terms of airline passengers. If there were greater volume on that route I do not doubt that it would be possible to have lower air fares on it. I also want to see lower domestic fares, but this depends on the volume of traffic and on the ability of the airlines to reduce fares.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the routes from Glasgow to London and from Edinburgh to London carry very heavy traffic, and that the air fares are higher than from London to Hong Kong?

Mr. Nott: I accept that travellers between London and Glasgow feel that the fares are very high. Like the hon. Gentleman, I should like to see them come down. I cannot order them down. I accept his point—not least because I have to travel 300 miles every weekend and sometimes go by air—that the fares are very high on the domestic routes, and that within Europe they are particularly high.
We are doing our best throughout the world to take a lead in bringing about lower air fares, and I believe that there is growing sympathy for this objective in Europe, if not always in the individual Ministries of Transport. We can derive some encouragement from the support given by the European Parliament and the Council of Europe to the objective of lower fares on European routes.
I hope that the House, in granting the measure a Third Reading, will feel that the Bill takes a further step towards the Government's overriding objective of limiting unnecessary activities of the State and encouraging the development of

healthy competition for the greater benefit of the consumer—in this case the travelling public.

Mr. John Smith: At the beginning of the debate the Secretary of State reminded us about the rules of order applying to these debates, and about what it was and was not appropriate to say on Third Reading. He then proceeded to introduce wholly new matter by making a statement about employees' shareholding.
It would have been much better if the Government—who must have had the matter under consideration for some time—had made a statement at an earlier stage of our proceedings. For example, there was an excellent opportunity to examine the subject in depth in Committee, but reticence was maintained at that stage, and apparently the excuse now is that the Government were awaiting the provisions of the Budget. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that the Bill has been before the House twice since the Budget and that there was ample opportunity for the matter to be considered then.
To produce this new matter at the very last stage of consideration in the House of Commons is not a fair way in which to treat Parliament. Those of us who listened to what the Secretary of State had to say would like to study it with interest. It is difficult for hon. Members to reach firm conclusions on the merits or demerits of what is proposed without having an opportunity to consider it carefully and to consult those who will be affected by it. I reiterate that it would have assisted us all if the statement had been made much earlier.
The Secretary of State had little to say in defence of part I of the Bill, apart from the statement that he made. The House will be aware that the main object of part I is to change the present public corporation into a Companies Act company, for one purpose—to permit the Government to sell off some of the shares in British Airways. As the Opposition have made clear from the beginning, we are opposed to the selling off of public assets in this fashion.
One of the things that struck me as curious throughout the course of our debate on Second Reading, and during


our lengthy Committee stage, was that there was very little in the way of justification by the Government for the purpose behind the selling of shares. We were told that it was to loosen control, and the Secretary of State said again today that his purpose was somehow to free British Airways from the shackles of Government control.
Having held his job for a short period, I did not at any time feel that I was in the position of shackling British Airways. I believe that British Airways had a fair amount of freedom of management decision under both Labour and Conservative Governments, although from time to time it has complained because particular Ministers took a restrictive view. Be that as it may, there is nothing to prevent the Government from allowing freedom of control to British Airways management if they want to do that. They do not have to sell a single share in order to achieve that purpose.
The Under-Secretary of State defined that freedom from control during our consideration on Report by saying that after the Bill became law British Airways could open up an office in Oxford Street or Piccadilly Circus. I do not know whether that is a definition of commerical freedom that springs easily to the mind of the Under-Secretary of State. I should not have thought that there would be much argument with any Government about where British Airways wanted to have its office.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): That observation was in relation to a specific point. I am surprised to learn that the right hon. Gentleman never at any time had any problems whatever with the Treasury in clearing all the capital expenditure that British Airways may have wanted. I should have thought that from time to time between 1974 and 1979 British Airways was asked to restrict its capital expenditure because of Treasury restrictions on borrowing.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that when I was Secretary of State we announced the refinancing of British Airways, which was very satisfactory from the Government's point of view and from the point of view of British Airways. It is rather an in-

appropriate point to put to me, of all the people who have held the office. My major point is that the Government do not need to sell the shares in order to give some freedom of management control; they can achieve that by the policy that they follow.
The other reason that the Government have from time to time disclosed is the effect that the proposals will have on the public sector borrowing requirement. In so far as one can define any logical reason behind the desire to sell off shares this appears to be the nearest candidate, but I am afraid that behind all the evasions that we have had from time to time during the passage of the Bill through Parliament the real reason why the Government want to sell off shares is one of dogma.
As we look at the Government's policies towards the publicly owned industries in this country we see that, basically, they are motivated by an attitude of malevolent spite to the public sector. That is why, since the last general election, they have been sniffing round the public sector—and particularly the assets of the public sector—like half-starved and mangy Alsatian dogs, to see what they can sell off.
In recent days there has been a great barrage of statements by Ministers, and that may have something to do with satisfying the more primal instincts of those who will be at the Conservative Party conference at Brighton later this year. They are trying to satisfy the faithful. We have seen it in regard to British Rail assets, the energy industries, and the other transport industries, with Ministers tripping over each other to come to the Dispatch Box to make announcements about hiving off or privatising the various industries for which they are responsible.
All that stems from a trouble centre in the Government—the ideological laboratory in the Department of Industry, presided over by that malevolent magician the Secretary of State for Industry. He there conducts primitive experiments on, unfortunately, five patients—the management and work force of British industry. His younger and more junior colleagues have to show that they are at least part-time practitioners of the art. That is why the Secretary of State for Trade had to have some hiving-off proposals in his portfolio. He would not otherwise be


demonstrating the sort of virility that wins approval from the right hon. Lady the Prime Minister.
The purpose of the Bill—apart from the advancement of the personal interests of the Secretary of State—is silly and trivial, and there is little surprise that the development of the Government's policy, which has such murky origins, has been attended by confusion and muddle.
Before we proceed to vote on the Third Reading of the Bill I should like to remind the House of what is proposed. As far as the present position can be understood. it would appear that the Government propose to sell off a minority of the shares, and therefore to retain a majority of the shares, but they say that they will give up all control over the management of the company. They do not want even one director on the board to look after their majority shareholding. What sense that makes for the Government, the company or the taxpayer I fail to understand. Why anyone who is a majority shareholder should voluntarily seek to give up power and control, which would be the only justification for retaining a majority shareholding in the first place, is difficult to understand.
I do not think that the Government will get away with this. If this manoeuvre succeeds, and if the Secretary of State plans later to say that he has no responsibility for British Airways, I warn him that the House of Commons will expect him to be accountable for the use or non-use of his majority shareholding, because the House of Commons is entitled to act as the guardian of the taxpayer's interest as the majority shareholder in the company.
It is remarkable that there is still such hopeless confusion about what the Government are to sell. We sought in Committee to pin down the Under-Secretary. When he was asked precisely "What are the Government going to sell when they say that they are going to sell a minority shareholding?", he said "I think it is somewhere between 25 per cent. and 49 per cent. of the shares". That is all the precision that we got from the hon. Gentleman, and I think that he would be the first to admit that

that leaves a fairly wide band of discretion to the Government.
At least at that stage it seemed clear that the Government were insistent on selling only a minority of the shares, although, as has been pointed out time and again, the Bill would give them the power to sell all the shares in the company without further reference to Parliament.
If the Government sell a majority shareholding they will lose control of the company. By and large that will be the case. Certainly if they sell substantially more than a majority shareholding they will lose control of the company. That would be significant, and for that reason we put down amendments requiring parliamentary approval for such a significant and vital change, but that suggestion has been rejected by the Government.
In the past the Government have said: "There is no need for it because we are not going to sell a majority of the shares", but the position became more complicated when a statement was made by the Under-Secretary on Report on 30 June. That statement is so illuminating with regard to the Government's intentions that it should have a wider audience than it has had to date.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) questioned the Minister on his policy of selling the shares. He asked whether he was going to sell a majority. The Minister replied:
The hon. Gentleman may think that I am an unusual Minister. He is entitled to that opinion. However, the Government's policy is and, so far as I can see, will remain to keep a 51 per cent. or greater holding for as long as it suits them. That policy is unchanging. How much suits us may change from day to day."—[Official Report, 30 June 1980; Vol. 987, c. 1127.]
That was the Under-Secretary of State's answer to the specific point, and it was supposed to help us. The hon. Gentleman, having so defined "unchanging", will understand the terror that struck us when the Secretary of State said that he believed in a flexible policy on some of these matters. If that is unchanging, God keep us from the consequences of flexibility.
The truth is that Parliament has not the faintest idea at this stage whether the Government will sell any, 3 per cent. or


97 per cent. of the shares in British Airways when they come to float them, if they ever do. It is an intolerable state of affairs for any Parliament to be asked to give this power to a Government when there is such a lack of information.
If the Government feel that it is not yet appropriate to make the decision whether to sell a majority or a minority of the shares—that may depend on some future battle between the hawks and the doves, or the wets and the drys in some Cabinet sub-committee—the very least that a legislature should demand is the right to approve that important change of policy by having a clause in the Bill that provides that parliamentary approval is required if the Government step over the line between majority and minority shareholding. That, I regret, has consistently been refused by the Government.
The House may have thought that the Under-Secretary's tone was meant to be humorous, but he looked very serious when he made his statement. If it is not to be taken as humorous, it is an arrogant statement. It is saying to Parliament "Mind your own business. We shall decide whether we have a majority or a minority shareholding. It is not of much interest to you, so do not bother yourself about it. It is a decision for the Government to take." That is an appalling view of the British constitution. I think that Parliament should be involved. If Parliament is not involved at this crucial stage, it should deny a Third Reading to the Bill. If on no other ground, I believe that that is a reason for opposing it tonight.

Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that what we are doing is any less respectful of Parliament or of this country's traditions than the proposal made by the national executive of the Labour Party to nationalise industries without compensation, by statutory instrument? I should have thought that that was pushing the right hon. Gentleman's luck a bit.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will have to await the proposals of future Governments on that and other matters. That date may not be far ahead. I am prepared to define the policies of the Labour Party in detail if I get a corresponding obligation from the Minister—

Mr. Tebbit: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that policy?

Mr. Smith: —but a Minister who believes that unchanging policies allow him flexibility from 1 per cent. to 99 per cent. does not deserve that consideration.

Mr. Tebbit: Answer the question.

Mr. Smith: There are many reasons why the Bill should be opposed, but one of the main reasons is that if it went ahead in the present circumstances of the international aviation industry the public would get a very raw deal from the sale of the shares. It is well known—indeed, the Secretary of State referred to this matter briefly—that international aviation is going through a difficult patch and that there are awkward circumstances relating to British Airways. International aviation is not at a highly profitable stage of development, and British Airways is on the brink of a massive new re-equipment programme involving the expenditure of £ 2.4 billion. The most likely consequence of the Government's selling off shares is that they will be sold at an absurdly low valuation of the real assets of British Airways, and that would be a fraud on the taxpayer.
Some of these potential difficulties are beginning to dawn on the Government. I noticed that in the Sunday Telegraph—the Sunday house magazine of the Conservative Party—it was stated that the proposal to sell British Airways shares was vanishing into the clouds. I hope that that is the case. That would be a glimmer of light amidst the encircling gloom. I hope, too, that it comes to pass that the Government have second, third and fourth thoughts about their unchanging policy, approach it with the flexibility defined by the Secretary of State and decide that perhaps after all their commitment to sell shares can be put off and put off and put off. I should even be understanding enough to allow them to make such an announcement after the Conservative Party conference, rather than before it, to assist them in that objective. The wisest thing that they could do would be to forget part 1 completely, because it makes no sense for the Government, the taxpayers or the aviation industry.
If the first part of the Bill has elements of tragedy, the second part has elements of comic farce. I think that what the


Secretary of State said about the justification for removing the responsibility for civil aviation licensing policy for himself and Parliament and giving it to the Civil Aviation Authority must have been written before the Hong Kong decision that he made. It struck me that it must have been lying in a drawer in the Department, having been written for a Third Reading debate at a much earlier date, and was pulled out and given to him on his way to the House without anybody having thought that he had made a decision in the meantime which overthrew his policy.
I remind the House that the Secretary of State said that he wanted to give up responsibility for making aviation policy, to take it away from Parliament—that is what it amounts to—and to leave it to the CAA to decide the policy for itself.

Mr. Nott: In which column does that appear?

Mr. Smith: It is in column 52 in Hansard of 19 November 1970. The Secretary of State talked about his attitude to the Civil Aviation Authority and said that he would not interfere
with the Authority's licensing decisions unless there are good reasons for doing so".—Official Report 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 52.]
Let us test that theory.

Mr. Nott: That is rather different, is it not?

Mr. Smith: There are many quotations, mostly from the Under-Secretary of State. The Secretary of State will be aware that we have not heard too much from him, because he has paid very little attention to the Bill. That is one of the reasons why we have not got him on record often enough.

Mr. Tebbit: Try me.

Mr. Smith: We have the Under-Secretary of State on record almost too often, but it does us little good when he defines his unchanging policy in the manner in which he did on a previous occasion.
The Secretary of State's main point was that he wanted to transfer responsibility for the making of civil aviation licensing policy to the CAA. If I am mis-stating the Secretary of State's argument I hope that he will correct me. I have put before the House our clear understanding of

the motivation of his policy. However, when we come to the Hong Kong licensing decision, we find that he overthrows the CAA. He does not do that because of an overriding international commitment or because an air service agreement has been ignored. He changes a decision of fact arrived at by the authority. The authority said that there was not room on the Hong Kong-London route for more than two carriers, namely, British Airways and one other.
Evidence was laid before the authority and it came to its conclusion and expressed it in trenchant fashion. It was at pains to draw a clear distinction between the North American route and the London-Hong Kong route. The Secretary of State is muttering. I think that he is saying that it was an opinion and not a fact. With respect, it was a judgment, reached upon the facts made available to the authority. On the whole, the authority is likely to have a slightly better chance of forming a good judgment on these matters than is the right hon. Gentleman. That is proved by his absurd decision on the London-Hong Kong route, if nothing else was needed to prove it.
Having set out to transfer responsibility to the CAA, the right hon. Gentleman grabs it back from the authority when the first decision has to be made. We are left with a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The Minister's policy is not one that has been declared by the Government and approved by Parliament. It is one to be deduced from the right hon. Gentleman's decisions on appeal, from nudges and winks, and from all the various ways in which he may communicate his desires through the Civil Service to the authority, which is left in the difficult position of trying to interpret his wishes by taking into account his contrary and inconsistent decisions. That is a foolish and unfortunate state of affairs.
No one who believed what the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary of State had said expected the decision that was made. I do not believe that the Under-Secretary of State has much time for his right hon. Friend's decision on the London-Hong Kong route, but of course constitutional propriety will forbid him from disclosing his true views on that issue. Surely no one with his


knowledge of the industry can agree with the decision. The fact remains that anyone who believed what the Secretary of State said could not have expected such a decision, and the right hon. Gentleman's credibility is now suspect.
When we discussed the Bill on Report we had the humour of the Government saying "We have made this decision, but there appears to be some doubt about our capacity to do so. We shall put I t right—not that we need to—for the avoidance of any doubt. We shall rewrite the criteria in the Bill to bring them in line with the decision that the Secretary of State has made, who has not operated that which Parliament has approved in principle." Retrospective validity was given to the undisclosed intentions of the Secretary of State on the London-Hong Kong route.
We intend to continue our opposition to the Bill, on both substantial parts of it. The Bill is irrelevant to the needs of the civil aviation industry in general and to British Airways in particular. We condemn it as a malevolent attack on the public sector, motivated by the narrowest and most dogmatic political prejudices. We hope that its major proposal, namely, the sale of British Airways' shares, if not over turned by a vote in the House of Commons, will be frustrated by the likely turn of events.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: One of the troubles with Opposition Front Bench speeches these days is that even moderates and Right-wingers, among whom I dare say the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mr. Smith) places himself, seem under an obligation to talk the same extravagant nonsense as the authors of the dark manifesto. I am an expert on the nonsense that the right hon. Gentleman talks because I have heard too much of it. If he had cut it out this afternoon we could have got on a great deal faster.
I shall say no more about the right hon. Gentleman now, because the House, as was expressed by one of our amusing sketch writers, seems to be living lately on a diet of civil aviation and chips. I think that it is probably getting a bit fed up with it. I know how keen hon. Members are to move on to the lashings of Scottish crime that we have to follow to entertain us this evening.
Once more the right hon. Gentleman tried to talk down the value of British Airways. We know that the aviation industry is having a hard time. That is known by British Airways. It issued a press statement a week ago that summed up the situation very neatly. There was no need for the right hon. Gentleman to dwell on the obvious at such length. He might have more usefully dwelt on the steps that British Airways is taking to put matters right.
I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman has read the press release. Perhaps he should do so. It sets out in detail and convincingly the action that British Airways management is taking to deal with the situation in which it now finds itself, which is by no means particular to British Airways. There is a shortfall of traffic, which means that it has surplus aircraft capacity. There is a shortfall in revenue, which means that it has a cash flow problem.
I welcome the news that British Airways is launching an aggressive sales campaign to increase market share. Apparently it is to cut excessive capacity on routes where full capacity is not being used, cut operating costs and sell a number of aircraft surplus to its needs. Those are the actions taken by a prudent business when it finds itself in such circumstances. It is action that helps to increase confidence in management.
British Airways also stresses—of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not say a word about this—that one vital ingredient in the success of its plan is the achievement of its staff numbers target, which requires flexibility and cooperation from the staff. My right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon is the sort of inducement that should lead to cooperation from airline staff. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman would not say a word about that, either.
I am sick and tired of hearing the right hon. Gentleman do his utmost to talk down the value of British Airways, to undermine confidence in the enterprise and to denigrate potential investment. They are responding to the situation in which they are placed. We are witnessing action that should give us confidence in their management and confidence in it as a prospective investment. The airline staff will see it that way, and I wish that


the right hon. Gentleman would so recognise it.

Mr. J. Grimond: I welcome the enthusiasm that the Secretary of State has shown for low fares. There is no doubt that what the consuming public who use airways want from the Bill are conditions in which they pay less for air travel and air freight. I sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties over the French. The French are charming people individually, but they must be hell to deal with as a Government. They sell nuclear know-how to the Iraqis and the ayatollah to the Persians and they hold up air freight charges in Europe. The Dutch have long been notorious for having faults in matters of commerce. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will succeed in getting lower fares in Europe. At present such fares are unnecessarily high.
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention especially to the level of fares within Britain. As has been said by the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton), the fare to Hong Kong is no more than the fare from London to Glasgow or Edinburgh. It is about half the fare to Orkney and Shetland. The aircraft are well filled. There is no lack of traffic to Glasgow and Edinburgh. There is a danger that on certain routes we shall find only Members of Parliament, civil servants, local government servants and expense account travellers. There is the danger that on certain routes no one else will be able to afford to use air transport.
Aviation should be an enormously expanding industry in Britain, and to some extent it is, but, apart from services, we have had no new routes for a very long time. The level of fares is frightening. That is partly due to the fact that so much traffic is creamed off by charter flights. When airways consider their overall takings I hope that they will take into account the amount that they receive from charters.
I welcome the determination of the airways to introduce lower tariffs. The level of competition that has recently come into Scottish airways has been a good thing. It has led to an improvement in services and has done something to hold down

fares. There is no doubt that the high level of fares is a serious factor.
I welcome the proposal to sell shares to the employees of British Airways if and when the shares are sold off. I do not understand why the Government want to retain a majority shareholding if—rightly, in my view—they do not want to interfere in the running of the corporation. I was relieved to hear the quotation from the remarks of that clearheaded man, the Under-Secretary of State for Trade. It seemed worthy of Mr. R. A. Butler at the height of his powers, and all the better for that. It could mean something, or nothing. It has the veneer of knowledge and of wisdom that we have come to expect from the Government Front Bench.
I may have misheard the proposals, but I understood the Secretary of State to say that if and when the company was sold off every employee would get £ 50 worth of stock free. That is not worth having. If stock is to be given away, more should be given. There would be problems about handling £ 50 of stock on the Stock Exchange. No stockbroker would sell such a quantity. Such an amount will not prove a great incentive. In pre-war terms, the amount is equivalent to £ 5.
I understand that those who subscribe will get two shares for the price of one. That is worth having. However, given the restrictions on resale, are they to be held by a trust or by individual employees?

Mr. Nott: The proposal in the Budget was that both shares could be sold at any time. However, if the free shares were sold within a certain restricted period, the individual would lose the income tax benefits that attached to that free share. He would still be free to sell it, but would lose the benefits if he did so within a certain period.

Mr. Grimond: I understand that the shares are to be registered in the individual's name and not in the name of a trust, on his behalf. Has the Secretary of State considered making amendments to the Companies Act? At present, a company cannot hold or buy its own shares. For the purpose of future employees, it might be desirable for the company to have a pool of shares, which


it could sell or give to them. They would then have an interest in the company. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider making amendments to the Companies Act, in order to facilitate such transactions.

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that one of the jewels in my crown is a Green Paper, which can be obtained from the Vote Office. It mentions the possibility of introducing legislation during the next Session relating to the right to purchase own shares. That proposition is already in circulation.

Mr. Grimond: I am sure that the Secretary of State's crown is full of all sorts of jewels. I understand that the Treasury is sympathetic to changes being made under the next Finance Bill. Such changes would make the process easier. The Secretary of State for Industry—that much maligned man—and the Secretary of State for Employment—who is equally maligned in some quarters—have made encouraging noises about such developments. They are useful developments, but they will not solve all our industrial troubles.
I am a little surprised that all British Airways' operations are to be kept together. It is a large company and there may be something to be said for returning to a division between the different services. However, I urge the Government to maintain their enthusiasm for low fares and to make that enthusiasm effective. When and if they sell the shares, I hope that they will do so on a generous basis. If the employees respond to that, they will have some representation on the board. The Secretary of State for Employment suggested that that should be a feature of British industry. Surely, this is the right time for the Government to show an example.

Mr. Kenneth Warren: I welcome the Secretary of State's determination to get the Dutch, West Germans and French round an EEC negotiating table. It is nice to see something happening in Europe for a change. During my time at the Council of Europe and at the Western European Union, I had the privilege of leading several discussions, in which unanimous agreement

was reached in favour of lower air fares. I got fed up with admonishing people, because they went back to their Parliaments and did nothing about it. It is good to see a British Government, particularly a Conservative one, doing something that we pledged to do at the Council of Europe and at the Western European Union.
As for the discussions in Brussels, I should like to commend to the Secretary of State some of the obligations that the Treaty of Rome places on the Commission. The Treaty places a responsibility on member States and on the Commission in relation to transport regulations, pricing and competition. Case law in France has clearly shown that the word "transport" includes air transport within the Community. The Secretary of State should throw that responsibility at the Commission. He should point out that according to article 80, member States have only to ask the Commission to examine the rates and conditions. That article points out that if any of the rates and conditions involve an element of support or protection they will be prohibited.
In the chapter entitled "Rules on competition" article 85 implies that all aspects of European air-fare negotiations—called bilaterals—between airlines and Governments are probably illegal under the Treaty of Rome. Article 85 states that terms and conditions will be prohibited as incompatible if they involve agreements preventing, restricting, or distorting competition. If we fix the purchase price or selling price of, for example, air fares, it is illegal. If we limit the production of transport by controlling the frequency of operations between European centres, it is illegal. Indeed, such control is rigidly exercised. If we share out markets—which is the way in which bilaterals have been negotiated—those markets are illegal. The article states that any such markets are automatically void.
The European air transport industry has been living in a fool's paradise for many years. It has not realised that the terms and conditions under which it sells fares and operates services are illegal under the Treaty of Rome. Under article 89 the Commission is obliged to investigate anything that a member State puts before it.
I hope that the Secretary of State will maintain the leadership that he has displayed by bringing the countries involved to the negotiating table. I am disappointed that we had to wait for a virile, vibrant and enthusiastic Secretary of State. One would have expected the Civil Aviation Authority to undertake such action automatically under the 1971 Act. One would have expected that body to show more initiative and to seek the Secretary of State's agreement to get such negotiations under way in Europe. I welcome what has been done, but I hope thaat this is only the beginning of better things to come for the traveling public.

Mr. Clive Soley: The provision relating to shares for employees does not come as any surprise. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis) may remember that we discussed such a possibility some time ago, at a public meeting held at Heathrow airport. I spoke on this subject to the trade unions involved. However, it is unacceptable that the provision should come at this stage. We could have discussed it in Committee if the proposal had been made earlier. Many questions are involved—voting shares, the amount, limitations, the proportion of total shares, and so on. In Committee, we spent a considerable amount of time discussing the involvement of British Airways employees. That would have been a good time to discuss the proposal.
I have never doubted that such a provision was part of the Tory Party's aim. It is clear that this secret was not unwrapped at the Tory Party central office. However, if the Secretary of State had asked me about it, I would have told him that that was the intention. The Minister does not seem to be certain whether the Government intend the shares to be sold to trusts or to individuals. They are to be sold to both, but particular encouragement will be given to individuals. That is the Tory Party's philosophy and policy. A select few have known that for some time.
We have gone over many of the arguments before. The Bill is irrelevant, because it is based on economic theories

that were devised in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. They were only partly relevant then, and they are certainly not relevant now. There is no comparison between large-scale capital-intensive organisations and the organisations to which those economic theories were directed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
BA's competitors will be protected or subsidised. That is a fact that we all know. The Government are launching British Airways with their eyes closed and their fingers and toes firmly crossed. That is not the right way to approach the problem. We all want British Airways to succeed. If they are to succeed the proposals must be launched at the right time and in the right way. They must be given protection. That assumes that the Goverment's economic philosophy is right, which I do not accept for a moment, because I am against the selling off of public assets of this type.
The fear is that if the plan goes wrong it will be yet another example of the de-industrialisation of Britain. If we ask British Airways to compete effectively with airlines that are protected in a way in which it is not, they will be in trouble,
British Airways issued recently a useful, honest and open statement. It stated:
'Civil aviation all over the world has been experiencing growing competition, lower fares and a weakening of government support for national carriers.
It stated that the situation had been made worse by a trade recession, which was likely to last throughout 1981. The statement continued:
Airlines worldwide are experiencing little or no growth. Traffic on many important routes is actually declining. Last year, the international scheduled airlines collectively did not even cover their interest charges.
British Airways are doing better than the industry as a whole and most of their direct competitors. If that is so, why make a change? Why change what is accepted to be one of the most successful airlines? Why change to a system that is likely to put British Airways in a difficult position?
The British Airways' statement continued:
The shortfall in traffic means that aircraft capacity exceeds what is needed, now and in the future. The shortfall in revenue that has resulted creates a shortage of cash with which to run the business and pay for new aircraft and equipment.


In Committee we talked at some length about what would happen if British Airways ran into a cash crisis. The Under-Secretary of State accused me of being gloomy. British Airways are talking rightly of selling off some of their aircraft in order to help meet the cash difficulty. That is a sensible policy. However, if the situation becomes worse and British Airways are not protected or subsidised, like some of their competitors, my gloomy predictions will come true. I do not want that to happen. If it comes to that we shall be faced with the problem of selling off the profitable parts in order to get British Airways over a short-term financial crisis. I do not want that to happen. However, I fear that the Bill does not face that possibility.
The Under-Secretary of State is experienced in flying. Only now has it dawned on me that he must have gained his experience with the Japanese. I suspect that he trained kamikaze pilots. If he had been successful in a kamikaze mission we should have missed him. Nevertheless, I fear that the epitaph on his action would have been the same as it is on the Bill—that it is irrelevant, but calamitous for the individual. The action could be irreversible, particularly if it misses its target or fails to reach it.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) rightly drew attention to the decisions being made by British Airways in these difficult times. He forgot to say that many of the decisions are influenced by the Bill. The decisions made by both management and employees have been influenced by the conditions that will operate in future.
I welcome the Bill. I welcome the denationalisation of British Airways. It is right to set up a new company in which the Government will be only shareholders and, more importantly, in which the employees will be shareholders. British Airways have been cosseted and cushioned. Their manning levels have grown to a point where they adversely affect the airline's ability to compete. The airline is now at a stage at which something must be done. Anyone who knows anything about the airline business knows that.
I welcome that part of the Bill which deals with the duties of the Civil Aviation

Authority. In particular, I like the way in which the Bill deals with the authority's licensing function. It calls on the authority to carry out its licensing function so that British airlines are required to compete as effectively as possible with other airlines in providing air transport services on international routes. In simple language, the CAA is to consider licensing requests in the interests of the fare-paying passengers. That is long overdue.
I am always interested to hear Scottish Opposition Members criticising the price of air fares from Scotland. The lack of competition causes the problem. We look for an improvement in Scotland in services, facilities and competitiveness.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker: I shall not give way, because there is little time available. If the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) wants to make a speech he can do so.
The improvement in Scotland depends on how the CAA reacts to requests from operators that wish to operate out of Scotland, particularly on internal routes where no negotiation is required and overseas interests are not involved.
In Scotland we need a Laker-type service. That would reduce fares on all the routes from Scotland's airports.

Mr. Hamilton: What about British Caledonian?

Mr. Walker: What about it? I wish that I had the opportunity to wear a British Caledonian tie. I noticed that an Opposition spokesman was wearing a British Airways tie. I should prefer to wear a Laker tie. I believe that that company has done much more for pricing than any other airline operating out of the United Kingdom for many years.
I want to see a Laker-type operation out of Scotland, so that we can enjoy the type of benefits of which I intend to make use on the North Atlantic route this year and of which I could not previously make use because the fare was too expensive.

Mr. Barry Shearman: I did not intend to take part in the Third Reading debate, and I shall speak for only one or two minutes. I served


on the Standing Committee for many weeks and I do not wish to miss the chance to respond to the Secretary of State's opening remarks.
The Bill is about the interests of the passenger and consumer. I back up the arguments made by my hon. Friends. Some insistent voices have come from Government Members who know a great deal about civil aviation and who are reluctant to support certain aspects of the Bill. There is much disquiet behind the scenes at the tenor of the Bill.
On Second Reading the Secretary of State made an interesting point. He said that the Bill was not intended to destabilise international aid traffic. I suggest that the Bill will destabilise the British interest in aviation. That is because it is a two-pronged Bill. The first part denationalises British Airways. When will that take place? When will the Government sell off 49 per cent. of their share, or even 5 per cent. or 10 per cent. of their share?
Secondly, denationalisation will change the nature of British Airways, and changing the nature of the Civil Aviation Authority will destabilise the British position over international air routes. The two changes together will harm a great British industry. British Airways are a fine corporation and a great foreign currency earner. We have had niggardly remarks from Conservative Back Benchers. It has been suggested that British Airways have been cushioned and cosseted and that they are a second-rate operation. We believe that they are a great airline, which has withstood the test of time. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) pointed out they are now showing a better return on investment than almost any other airline in the world. Given a bad international climate they are doing very well.
The Government have been hiding behind their role as champions of the consumer. At the end of the day, if consumers have any sense—Scottish Conservative Members should recognise this—they will see that although it is easy to take a cheap, short-term bargain, by doing so we shall sell our future for a mess of pottage. In the long term the Bill may destabilise the international aviation industry. In the short term we may have cheap flights to Hong Kong.
The Secretary of State mentioned Laker. After a period of cheap bargains for the consumer, we may find that there is a monopoly on Atlantic flights. The Bill promises a bad future for the British aviation industry and for Britain.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-North-wood): The hon. Member for Hudders-field, East (Mr. Sheerman) illustrates the dangers of taking a walk-on part in debates. Had he arrived earlier he would have heard what my right hon. Friend said about his intention to float shares in June 1981.

Mr. Sheerman: I was here for the opening speeches, and heard the discussion on the share issue.

Mr. Wilkinson: In that case the hon. Gentleman should listen more attentively. My right hon. Friend was explicit about the timing of the flotation.

Mr. Sheerman: I was talking about all the shares.

Mr. Wilkinson: I shall address my brief remarks to part II of the Bill and in particular to the emergency powers. I was unfortunately unable to be present for the Report stage, because of the mini-session of the Council of Europe. Had I been here I should have drawn attention to clause 10 (1), which speaks of certain contingencies
In time of war, whether actual or imminent
The other place should delete the phrase "whether actual or imminent". What is required is for the Secretary of State to have powers in times of war or great national emergency to requisition civil aircraft for military air transport purposes, such as reinforcement and supply. It is not clear from the measure how those powers are to be exercised. This legislation makes no such provision, which is a signal deficiency. For example, in the autumn there is a reinforcement exercise, "Crusader 80", for which the requisitioning of civil air transports should be necessary for the deployment of troops to Europe. Following the 1975 defence review the Royal Air Force is deficient in transport aircraft, and in wartime would need to requisition aircraft.
The Bill contains no suggestion that the personnel who would be required for the manning of requisitioned aircraft


should be subject to military discipline. There have been consultations between my right hon. Friend's Department and the Ministry of Defence about the disciplinary aspects. In reply to a question last Tuesday my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force told me that the matter was under review. How far has that review gone and have any decisions been taken?
If no decisions have been taken, the Secretary of State could give an order under clause 10 (3) to persons managing an air transport business, but those under them may not necessarily carry out the instructions passed on to them. It may not be the policy of their trade union to do so. There are powers in the Bill to ensure compliance—for example, a fine not exceeding a statutory maximum of £ 1,000, and, on conviction, a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years. However, I assume that those sanctions would be applied to persons managing such undertakings and not to ordinary employees. It is a grave deficiency. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can explain the situation and say whether his consultations with the Ministry of Defence have made the position more watertight.

Mr. Michael Colvin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. I believe that you very nearly half-called me before, so I shall make only a half-length speech.
The Civil Aviation Authority has started the process of consultation, which will lead eventually to the publication of its draft policy for licensing. Could the Minister comment on the best use of regional airports, in particular on the very strange situation in Scotland, where the Civil Aviation Authority looks after some airports and the British Airports Authority looks after others? Perhaps the Minister would speculate on the future relationship between the CAA and BAA. The time may have come to merge their operational functions—for example, air traffic control and airport management—under the British Airports Authority, leaving the CAA purely as a licensing and safety organisation.
Following the Government's welcome intention to privatise certain nationalised industries, is not the British Airports Authority, with its need to raise large

sums of money for airport development, a prime candidate so that it can operate more commercially? Is it not against some of the international conventions to which we subscribe that exhorbitant airport charges at Heathrow should go towards the cost of building an airport like Stansted? I should welcome an answer to those questions. As my right hon. Friend suggested, the privatisation of the British Airports Authority would get the Treasury off the back of a large nationalised industry.

Mr. Clinton Davis: We have heard much in recent weeks about dawn raids. A considerable time has passed since the Secretary of State for Trade—Biggies Nott—decided to carry out his dawn raid on British Airways on 20 July last year. Since then, we have had about 67 hours of debate on the Bill, some of it on the Floor of the House but most in Committee, and all that has been demonstrated is that, like so many of their colleagues—perhaps I should say rivals—in the Cabinet, the two Ministers in charge of the Bill want to devote themselves with unbelievable energy to topics that are injurious to the strength of the British civil aviation industry.
We have not been given a convincing explanation of why the Government are proceeding with the Bill. As the days go by, there is a great deal of scepticism, even among their usual supporters in the press, about whether the flotation will ever take, place.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, North-wood (Mr. Wilkinson) must have misheard the Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman did not say that he would proceed with the flotation on a particular date. He said that it would happen not before 1981.

Mr. Wilkinson: If I was being hard on the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman), I am only too glad to apologise, but I understood my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say that from June 1981 it would be possible for the Government to proceed with the flotation if economic circumstances were propitious.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman was not hard, but hard of hearing. We have still not been told what the Bill will do to deal with the basic problems affecting


British aviation. How will it improve industrial relations and productivity in British Airways? How will a greater competitive spur in an already vigorously competitive international market be provided if we sell 49 per cent. or 75 per cent. or whatever proportion the Government decide? Why have the Government vigorously opposed enshrining in the Bill an assurance that was repeatedly given in Committee by the Under-Secretary that he had no intention of selling a majority of shares in the successor company?

Mr. Tebbit: I have never given an assurance that the Government will never sell a majority of shares.

Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman said that that was not his intention, but he could not bind his successors. That is a fair resume of what he consistently said in Committee.
We have been given no good reasons why at least two Government directors should not be appointed to the board of the successor company to act, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) requested, as watchdogs to protect the public interest while it is still so substantial. Of course, that would have been a commonsense proposal and, for that reason, would have been out of place in the Government's thinking.
The Government have still not indicated what they are to sell and why there is to be no accountability to Parliament. Those are important issues and, as long as the Government retain a majority shareholding, they are vital for the people of this country.
I suppose that to expect an answer from the Under-Secretary in the closing moments of the debate would be tantamount to expecting the greatest miracle since Moses struck the rock. It is not going to happen.
The Government are hiding behind a fig-leaf—the provision, selling or giving of some shares to some employees. I shall come to the question of the viability of that proposal later, but I suspect that there will be only limited interest in the scheme. If that is what the Government wanted to do, it would have been possible to do it without embarking on the whole programme of privatisation.
The credentials of the Bill have been in the gravest doubt from the beginning. There was no electoral requirement for it because it was not in the Conservative Party's manifesto. It did not engage-in consultations in advance, but it was the Secretary of State's burnt offering to the Tory Party conference in October 1979. That is why it had to be announced in July of that year.
In order to justify the lack of consultation about the principle underlying the proposals—and I repeat that the trade unions regarded that as a deliberate snub, and were right to do so—and despite the fact that from the Government's own pragmatic view it was absurd to go along that road, the Under-Secretary has repeatedly treated the House to a veritable cornucopia of constitutional drivel about why he could not engage in prior discussions with those whose lives revolved around the industry.
That has not deterred the Secretary of State from engaging in discussions with those interested in other Bills before the proposals have been announced. That is true of the Companies Bill and a variety of measures. Only recently, the Minister of Transport said that he had consulted British Rail management and the National Union of Railwaymen before bringing a proposal to the House. The Under-Secretary claims that constitutional proprieties prevented him from doing that. That is balderdash. If it were not an offence to the great constitutional lawyer Dicey, I should refer to it as a dicey proposition.
There are no compelling reasons and no justification for the Bill, except the dubious one of removing British Airways' operations and investment programme from the public sector borrowing requirement.
The truth is that the Bill has been introduced for doctrinal reasons alone. The Government's reasoning represents all the bogus rationale of the monetarist school, of which the Secretary of State is so prominent a member. It is the Department of Trade's contribution to rolling back the frontiers of public ownership. The tragedy for the country is that the Government are made up of men and women suffering from an overwhelming compulsion to believe what is demonstrably untrue.
This irrelevant measure must pose an enormous question mark over the future of British Airways. The Government are pursuing their policy regardless of the consequences. I believe that it represents a threat to the stability of the airline—a vital commodity if British Airways are successfully to withstand foreign competition. The Bill will represent a threat to the morale of the work force and management, particularly if the flotation of the shares proves to be unsuccessful. It is a bad proposal and we shall remedy it.
For all those reasons, I can only liken the Bill to a mule. It has neither pride of ancestry nor hope of posterity. The real question is: how viable is the proposition to sell the shares? Ministers have regularly refused to address themselves to that question.
The Secretary of State said that British Airways fared better during the recession of the early 1970s than did most of their competitors. They have done that again, under the existing management and under public ownership. They have unquestionably provided a much better service overall than some of their detractors in the Sunday Express and other rabble newspapers have suggested.
The Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State have paid tribute to the role played by British Airways. We are in accord on that, but it is clear that in no circumstances can the airline provide, in present circumstances, a track record of profitability, which is the usual criterion for establishing a flotation.
The Under-Secretary refers to the United States scene with considerable interest from time to time. What is the position there? Airline after airline is showing a considerable deficit. Whatever the reasons—they are largely attributable to the oil crisis—I have cited on a previous occasion the status report by Paine Webber Mitchell Hutchins Incorporated, a very reputable organisation, which, having recited the situation at the present time, concluded:
All this should mean lower airline earnings in 1980 and no big earnings recovery in 1981. In order to achieve large near term gains in stock prices, a large rebound in 1981 is a must. Otherwise, the group may continue to drift lower and/or at best offer dead money for some time. Neither possibility argues for heavily owning these stocks.

What is the difference between owning stocks in British Airways under these circumstances and owning stocks in a large number of American airlines? I believe that the Sunday Telegraph is right in pouring scorn on Government intentions.
I turn briefly to part II. The transformation in Government thinking on this issue is extraordinary. Originally, the plan was for the Government to distance themselves from aviation policymaking despite the fact that the Opposition contend that it should be the role of the Secretary of State to determine a clear policy within which parameters the Civil Aviation Authority should operate. It should be accountable to Parliament on these matters.
The Government went ahead with their proposals despite considerable opposition from virtually all the airline interests. That was the policy until just before the Report stage. The plan, at that time, was to turn the Civil Aviation Authority from a quango into a tango—a totally autonomous non-governmental organisation. Suddenly, all that was changed by the Secretary of State's Hong Kong decision. The right hon. Gentleman made the change in time for his now famous after-dinner speech at the Dragon Boat dinner. He abandoned his quasi-judicial role—never mind his offering the thinnest possible veneer of adhering to that important role—and ignored all the evidence presented to, and analysed by, the Civil Aviation Authority. The right hon. Gentleman effectively opted for, although he still denies it, an open skies policy on that route. He held that the Civil Aviation Authority had entirely mis-directed itself on the issue of having four carriers on the route. What he has achieved is turmoil.
One possibility is that we are now back to the pre-1971 situation of pantomime hearings before the Civil Aviation Authority with arbitrary decisions made by the Secretary of State on appeal. If, on the other hand, it is simply a one-off decision, made clearly for political purposes, he hopes that it will have so intimidating an effect on the Civil Aviation Authority that, in future, to avoid a clash with the Government, the authority will operate within the vague philosophy that he has enunciated but for which he provides no statutory basis. That would be a sinister turn of events.
I recall reading, I think in Lloyd's List, in the early days of the Secretary of State's ministry, an article which stated, appreciatively and with some justification, that the right hon. Gentleman had a great sense of humour. One needs to have a sense of humour to be a member of this Government. The article recalled that the right hon. Gentleman had been financial adviser to Burmah Oil when it had gone bankrupt in 1974. According to the article, the right hon. Gentleman said about that event: "It was not my finest hour."
By comparison with his accomplishments as Secretary of State in charge of aviation, I think that it was the apogee of his career. This is the glittering limelight into which he has gone. He has posed a wilful threat to the success and the future of British Airways, which remain a priceless national asset that over 50,000 people have sought to preserve and enlarge. He has left civil aviation policy in a shambles. This is a bad Bill, based on the invincible ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend about the needs of our aviation industry. It should be rejected by the House.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Norman Tebbit): We regret the departure of Kermit the frog from the Muppet show, but we shall nevertheless get on without it. We have been through all these arguments time and again. The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Davis), his right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. Smith) and Opposition Back Benchers complain perpetually that they have not had any answers. The problem is that they cannot understand the answers offered them. That is not because the answers are bad. Nor, in many cases, is it because they are intellectually limited. They are possessed by a sheer, blind determination not to understand.
The same determination comes from members of the trade unions—no, that is wrong—from the leaders of trade unions, who complained that they were not consulted, despite the fact that I made plain that my office door was open at all times for them to come and see me to discuss the nature of the employee share offer, the guidelines for the Civil Aviation

Authority and many other matters. They have chosen not even to answer the letters that I have written asking for their opinions.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Gentleman rejected them at the outset.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman says that I rejected them at the outset. I did not reject them. As soon as it was proper, in my view, that they should be invited to offer their opinions, they were invited. If they take the attitude that they will sulk out of pique and say that they do not care about their members' interests in the matter—for example, of the share offer to employees and will not even discuss it—that is a matter between them and their members.

Mr. Davis: How does the Minister reconcile his refusal to talk to the trade union leaders, before the announcement in July was made, with the fact that before making his announcement recently his colleague the Minister of Transport engaged in consultations with the NUR and the management of British Rail?

Mr. Tebbit: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman asks my colleagues how they manage their outfits, and that he asks my right hon. Friend and I how we manage ours. I have told the hon. Gentleman that I thought it was appropriaate that after we had made our decision we should bring it first to the House instead of informing people outside. This is characteristic of the half-baked logic that the hon. Gentleman brings to this whole matter. He rightly describes British Airways as a great airline, but goes on to imply—indeed, virtually directly to say—that no one other than the taxpayer would want to own any shares in it. What sort of logic is that? Is it a good enough investment for the taxpayer? If it is, why is it not a good enough investment for anyone else?
The right hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North took the view that the Government either should or need not intervene in the management of British Airways while it is in public ownership. The right hon. Gentleman said "You do not need to do all these things. All you need to do is not to intervene in the management." He then criticised the Government, saying that when we had sold a


substantial part of the share capital we should keep on intervening when we own less than the whole of it. The right hon. Gentleman should make up his mind which he wants.
The right hon. Gentleman also pretended that he had never heard of that delightful ritual, to which I hope I am allowed to refer, called the Treasury bilateral, where a Minister from a Department meets someone such as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss what public expenditure will be allowed which he can offer to the nationalised industries in his care for their investment programmes. I do not think that it is any secret to those inside or outside the House that these things happen. Nor is it any secret that the nationalised industries concerned often do not get all the money that they need. Nor is it any secret that they are often not told how much money they can have until considerably later than is proper for the best management of then business. That sort of interference in the proper management of a commercial organisation is inevitable if it is nationalised. It is one of the reasons why we want to denationalise British Airways. [Interruption.] Yes, I use the expression "denationalise", but of all the expressions I prefer the word "liberate", because that is what this Bill is about. It is about liberating British Airways, their employees and their assets, to enable them to govern their own affairs and take responsibility for all that they do.
Some questions were raised in the course of the debate and I shall reply to them briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Warren) referred to the Treaty of Rome. I think that he might ask himself whether, as no action has yet been taken in the EEC to enforce the competition articles of the Treaty of Rome, he might conclude that all legal opinion is not unanimous on whether those articles apply.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) asked what would happen about the issues of shares for employees. I said quite clearly in Committee that that would depend, in part at least, on what the Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to do in his Budget. We have had the Budget, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has explained the position further today.
Labour Members were not interested in this matter earlier, or they would have raised it on Report. It is not for a Minister to introduce a matter on Report when that matter does not require amendment to the Bill, or legislation of itself and about which he has not been asked by any hon. Member. Therefore, it was perfectly right for the Secretary of State to raise the matter at this stage.
My answer to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is that I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may have inadvertently misled him about the period for which shares must be held by employees from the free issue and the cheap issue, if I may call it that. Both types of shares must be held by trustees for a minimum of two years before they can be sold. The tax will then be payable at reduced rates over sales within the next five years, and after seven years the shares can be sold free of income tax. That probably makes the matter clear.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) asked when the shares would be sold. My right hon. Friend said that it would not be before next summer. Personally, I should have taken refuge in that time-honoured expression used at the Dispatch Box—"Not next week."
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip. Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) was concerned about the provisions for the takeover of transport aircraft in an emergency. I know that the House is anxious to move to a Division, so I refer him to columns 619 to 662 of the Official Report of Standing Committee B on 14 February and 26 February, when these matters were explored at length. I have continued to explore them with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Colvin) questioned the relationship between the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority over ownership of the airfields in Scotland. It seems appropriate that the BAA should manage Aberdeen, which is a large and busy airfield, akin to the others that the BAA manages in other parts of the country. The way in which the CAA has managed the Highlands and Islands airports has been both popular and efficient, and there is no


reason to change these matters simply out of administrative tidy mindedness.
On the question of the introduction of private capital for the BAA, it would be difficult to find the right format. But no one should exclude the possibility of introducing private capital to ease the problems of financing the considerable expansion that the BAA wishes to undertake.

Mr. Wilkinson: Would it not also be possible for the British Airports Authority to borrow, as other public bodies are able to do, to meet its capital requirements for construction and other important works?

Mr. Tebbit: If the PSBR is to be contained at any figure, that which the BAA borrows cannot be borrowed by another authority somewhere down the line or spent in some other way by the Government. It is possible, of course, for the BAA to borrow, but it is a matter of the total that we can allow in Government expenditure.
Finally, the Bill in its two parts prepares the ground to liberate British Airways. Liberty has its price and its perils and British Airways must be responsible, after the transition, for their own future. It will be up to everyone in the airline, from members of the board to the most junior employees, to assure his own future, and with it that of a large part of the British civil aviation industry. I am sure the whole House will wish British Airways every success both in their present public corporation form and in their future private sector guise.
The other main provisions of the Bill concern the CAA and air transport licensing. The authority will govern the regulation of the industry through what may well be a testing time for civil aviation, world-wide. There will be changes of degree, emphasis and style, rather than a wholesale rooting up of all that has grown up in the past in favour of entirely untried ideas.
The CAA has established a world-wide reputation over the past nine years, and that springs from the quality and the work of its staff, not only in licensing, but in safety, particularly of aircraft certification, crew standards and air traffic control.
Some questions have been asked about whether the CAA will have a continuing commitment to technical research, the provision of expert advice to British exporters and the improvement of safety. I give a firm commitment on behalf of the authority that that work will continue as part of the authority's broad objective and functions, and that it will be unaffected by this legislation.
Despite what has been said about the Government's attitude towards public sector industries, there is something in the Bill for the British Airports Authority which, I hope, will help it to export its expertise, services and goods in the general national interest. There is no prejudice among my right hon. and hon. Friends against the work of the nationalised industries. We aim merely to ensure that that work is carried out in the most efficient and effective way, and above all in the interests of the consumer. I am sure that the House will want to wish both the Civil Aviation Authority and the British Airports Authority every success under the new arrangements of the Bill, which I now commend to the House.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 317, Noes 229.

See Division 426 in column 737

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 4

Search for offensive weapons

Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 5, line 43, at end add—
'(5) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall authorise any constable to search any person or persons on a random or group basis.'.
Throughout the protracted Committee stage we turned repeatedly to the new police powers in relation to the names


of witnesses, detention, and, above all, the powers of search. The last was a measure that we resisted most strongly. It is precisely because of our concern for the preservation of law and order that we are disturbed about these new powers. Law and order require a willing co-operation between the authorites and the community, and our anxiety throughout has been that if the powers of search go ahead as proposed they will lead to a breaking down of law and order because they would create conflict between the young people in our cities and the police.
That kind of power—one that would have led to indiscriminate or group search—was argued for by the Conservative Party during the election and by Conservative Members during the course of the proceedings on the Labour Government's Bill. Let me quote the words of the Solicitor-General for Scotland—it will be the only time that I quote him—

Mr. Donald Stewart: No, no, no. Do not deprive us.

Mr. Buchan: Yes, I shall be moderate in my quotations tonight. This will be the only time. I give testimony to the hon. and learned Gentleman's assistance on another matter affecting another piece of law over the past day or two. He has been extremely helpful on that. In his approach to these new proposed powers, however, he is wrong-headed and reactionary. The quotation demonstrates the Conservative view on the powers of search and the reason for our initial anxieties. Speaking to an amendment he had moved he said in Committee on the last Government's Bill
under the amendment the police could search all the people in the dance hall if necessary in order to eradicate the knife from further use".
The right hon. Gentleman was describing a situation in which a knife had been used. He continued:
Let me take another example—a gang of youths forming a mob. There are more cases now than there used to be. If a policeman saw a mob of youths shouting 'Up the Yogi'—or whatever funny gang they belonged to—he would be entitled, seeing their mood, to search them to ensure that none was carrying a weapon.
In the first place that policeman would be a braver man than I if he decided to institute a search in such a situation. At that time the Conservatives envisaged the powers of search as permitting the random searching or frisking of young people. We

believe that that would lead to a breakdown of law and order and of relationships between young people and the police.
We were doubly anxious because the then leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland—now translated to being the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor)—said the same thing on the same Bill. He, too, spoke of a disturbance in a dance hall. The Tory Party has an obsession with dance halls. Presumably Conservative Members think that no Tory voters go to dance halls. The hon. Member said:
if there were a disturbance in, say, a dance hall, the police should have the power to search all those involved and coming out. That is different from the present position and that is what we are aiming at in the amendment."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25 January 1979; c. 69-82.]
Therefore, our anxiety always was whether the provisions in this Bill would lead to the indiscriminate search that the Tories were calling for in opposition. The position altered during discussion on the Bill. The Under-Secretary, explaining this clause, said very firmly:
It is not the Government's intention that the police should have random powers of search, either for ordinary members of the public or for members of the public who have in the past transgressed the criminal law. Therefore, we are not dealing with the realms of random search, either for the general public or for any individual. There must be reasonable suspicion that on the occasion in question the individual whom the police wish to search is carrying an offensive weapon. That is the important point.
So the emphasis had altered. The concern now is in relation to individual rather than group search, and the Under-Secretary claimed that that was what the Bill sought. He went further and said:
before the police use this power their suspicion should have crystallised on an individual or individuals
He repeated that phrase, a good phrase, and said:
So the police must have their suspicion crystallised on an individual or individuals whom they propose to search before the power would be appropriate.
Those were the assurances that were given. The Government had therefore resiled from the position on which they had fought the law and order ticket in the election. They have resiled from the position they put forward on the Labour Government's Bill when they sought a portmanteau or random search. Now


they say that the power of search would be used only where the suspicion had "crystallised" on a particular individual.
The Opposition, who are, not unnaturally, suspicious, because the general tenor of the Bill is punitive, repressive and reactionary, probed further. We pointed out that the Conservatives had changed their tune. We suggested that if the Bill sought to provide what the Government were now proposing that should be written specifically into the Bill. We sought to make an amendment to write in "any one particular person", but it was rejected by the Under-Secretary. He said, however:
I emphasise two things … First the Government's intention is that there should not be random powers of search; secondly where more than one person may be being searched at a particular time, it is necessary for the police to have reasonable suspicion that each person whom they search may be the person who is carrying the weapon at the time in question.
But he also added:
because of the concern expressed by the Opposition, we will look at it again and let the Opposition know our conclusions on the matter.
We wish to hear the Government's conclusions on this because I see no amendment tabled to spell out more firmly and more clearly the Government's view that suspicion must be "crystallised" on a particular individual.
We have reason for pursuing this matter now. The Government said that they would look at it and have presumably done so. Even so. they have not seen fit to introduce an amendment to spell out in the Bill the provision that suspicion must be "crystallised" on an individual and that they would reject indiscriminate frisking and random group search.
Again, the Under-Secretary said
Let us assume a situation which very often applies, where there is a small group of people and one may have reasonable cause to believe they are acting in concert—three or four people, perhaps a gang.
There are problems in that. Some of us asked "How big is a gang?" It is rather like asking "How long is a piece of string?" Could all those present in a dance hall be considered to be a gang in that sense? Clement Attlee gave a classic definition when he said that one cannot define an elephant but that one can recognise one when it comes through

the door. We have received no clarification of the meaning of "group". The Minister said:
That is why I say that it depends on how one defines a group."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 22 May 1980, c. 533-53.]
It does indeed depend on that.
We are especially anxious because legislation does not depend upon the assurances of Ministers. It depends upon the wording of the Bill and its interpretation by the courts. When we discussed posters advertising the new law the Minister said:
It is not for posters to interpret the law. Indeed, it is not for Ministers to interpret the law. Once Parliament has approved the clause, the courts interpret the law. As has often been said—by the Labour Members as much as by anyone else—while ministerial interpretations of what Governments intend the law to be may clarify matters for purposes of debate, it is what is in the clause, as approved by Parliament, that matters."—[Official Report, First Scottish Standing Committee, 3 June 1980; c. 603.]
We cannot simply take the assurances of Ministers. Although we accept that that is their intention, we are now giving them the opportunity to spell it out.
We sought to use the phrase "any one person", which was not accepted when it was debated in Committee. Amendment No. 18 seeks to add a subsection which states:
'(5) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall authorise any constable to search any person or persons on a random or group basis.'.
Nothing could be clearer. I am not sure how legalistically perfect the suggested provision is, but it spells out exactly what the Ministers said in Committee. We wanted to arrive at a form of words that used that very good phrase about suspicion crystallising on an individual. The amendment is clear. It puts into the legislation what the Government said was their intention, namely, that it should apply not only to an individual and not to random or group searches. If it were accepted, we should be delighted. We want to hear what the Minister has to say. The attitude towards the Bill, and the earlier understanding that existed about the clause, was that it should allow group search. I remember only too vividly that for a year demands were placed upon me to introduce such a power. I refused to do so. The power sought by the police, which they thought they


would obtain—and which is now being provided by the Government—was the power of random group search of the sort described by the previous leader of the Conservative Party in Scotland, the hon. Member for Southend, East and the Under-Secretary, but which was rebutted in Committee.
I want to hear the Solicitor-General for Scotland say clearly tonight either that the Government accept the amendment or that it is unnecessary because they will make it crystal clear—to use a favourite expression of the hon. Member for Southend, East—to the community at large, and especially to the police, that if the power is used in that way it will transgress the intention of the law. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will spell out tonight the way in which that could transgress the letter of the law.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: I rise briefly to support the amendment. There is a great deal of justifiable fear throughout Scotland that instead of improving police and community relations the Bill will hinder them. I refer especially to the powers of search that will be given to the police under this clause. The amendment will go some way to alleviate a position that may come about if the clause is passed unamended. It would be fair to make a distinction between searching an individual person where there is clear evidence that he is carrying an offensive weapon and the position where the police take part in an indiscriminate group search.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that the Tory Party is obsessed with the possibility of youngsters carrying offensive weapons, with offensive weapons being carried in dance halls and discos, and with youngsters roaming the streets while carrying dangerous weapons. I have seen some Conservative Members carrying something that could be used as a dangerous weapon. I have seen the Solicitor-General with a big stick. On a group basis, I have seen bands of Tories and their supporters taking part in blood sports and carrying dangerous weapons—for example, fox hunting and grouse shooting. In such circumstances there is clear evidence that people are

carrying dangerous weapons, whether guns or riding crops, that they may use against others. The police should take action against them. It is unfair to imagine that it is only youngsters who are guilty of carrying dangerous weapons.

Mr. John MacKay: Will the hon. Gentleman say how many people in Scotland have been charged with murder resulting either from the use of a riding crop or from a gun ostensibly to be used for grouse shooting? Will he contrast that with the number of people who have been charged with murder resulting from the use of offensive weapons, such as knives, carried in dance halls?

Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman may not have been following the recent case in the sheriff courts at Linlithgow and Falkirk involving the West Lothian and Stirlingshire hunt. Certain supporters and participants of the hunt—most of whom are known Tory supporters—used riding crops against innocent people who wanted to protect the fox. The police should be given every encouragement to intervene in such cases. To show that I have no party bias in the matter, I shall cite an incident that took place in my constituency only last month. A lunatic militant fringe group of the Scottish National Party marched through part of my constituency on their way to a rally at Bannockburn carrying broad swords. Such a group activity should be made illegal and the police should be given every encouragement to take action. Those are cases where there is clear evidence that individuals within a group are carrying offensive weapons.
Under the terms of the Bill, I understand that action may be taken against a group of people where the police suspect that a person within that group is carrying an offensive weapon. It may turn out that nobody within that group is carrying an offensive weapon. It may be that every person within that group is innocent. With the unemployment figures announced yesterday, inevitably there will be more and more youngsters roaming the streets with nothing to do. I fear that the repressive measures contained in the clause will encourage provocative action to be taken against youngsters, many of whom have committed no offence.
The amendment would provide some safeguard in that position. It would also safeguard the relationships between the police and youngsters, especially those youngsters who are being given no opportunity for a reasonable future because of the policies of this rotten Conservative Government. It now appears that they intend to initiate more and more repressive measures against them. The police have a difficult enough job to do without the House expecting them to use such measures as these against young people or, indeed, any group of people, unless there is absolutely clear evidence that the individuals concerned are carrying offensive weapons.

Mr. John Maxton: I take slight issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan), who said that he would be delighted if the Government were to accept the amendment. I would be pleased, because it would be a small step in the right direction. I think that the word "delighted" is a little too strong, because the only delight that I would have would be if the clause was totally removed from the Bill. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with me.

Mr. Buchan: I was merely trying to encourage the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: I accept that my hon. Friend is trying to encourage the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he will have a difficult task getting any blood out of the stones on the Government Front Bench.
We believe that the amendment should be accepted by the Government, because in Committee a clear commitment was given by the Under-Secretary that the intention of the clause was that the powers of search should be limited to those in respect of whom there were reasonable grounds for suspicion. That commitment was given, and my hon. Friend has clearly spelt out that that was the case.
The Minister made it clear that Ministers do not interpret the law. It is the courts that do so. I believe that without the amendment the courts could interpret the clause as allowing random searching in specific circumstances and areas within our inner cities. The Solicitor-General for

Scotland shakes his head, but the clause as drafted states:
Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any person is carrying an offensive weapon".
We get into difficulty when we try to define what "reasonable grounds" are. That is a pretty broad phrase, which perhaps is not capable of strict legal definition. The nearest we have come to it is in the report of the Advisory Committee on Drug Dependence, in 1970, which dealt with the powers of arrest and search in relation to drug offenders. That report said that there was an
unwritten code which is familiar to every police officer, but much less familiar to the public
as to how the police define "reasonable cause". I assume that "reasonable grounds" is roughly the same as "reasonable cause". That unwritten code refers to:
the demeanour of the suspect; the gait and manner of the suspect; any knowledge the officer may have of the suspect's character or background".
To me that implies that if a constable knows that a person has carried an offensive weapon in the past, that person could be searched on a random basis, simply because he has a record. The code also uses the phrase:
whether the suspect is carrying anything, and the nature of what he is carrying".
If a person is carrying a bag late at night, that person can be stopped and searched on that basis. The code also refers to the person's mode of dress and bulges in clothing. If someone is a pipe smoker, and carries a pipe in his pocket while walking the streets late at night, a constable may think that he is carrying a gun. He will therefore have reasonable grounds for stopping and searching such a person. The code also stipulates "the time of observation". Therefore, one is more likely to be stopped late at night.
If that is the sort of unwritten code that police constables in Scotland will use, it could lead to a situation—whatever the Solicitor-General for Scotland or the Under-Secretary may say—where random searching essentially takes place. Unfortunately, that could occur even if the amendment were accepted. That would certainly cover groups of youths who look suspicious late at night in certain streets of our inner city areas.
The powers of search in relation to drug abuse give us an indication of what this leads to. We know of the unwritten code that is used by the police in terms of drug abuse. It is reasonable to expect that a similiar unwrittten code will be used with regard to the powers of search for offensive weapons.
In the South of England and certain other parts of England, random searching goes on with regard to drugs, although the police must have reasonable cause for suspicion. The statistics show that that is so. In Scotland, a higher proportion of people are searched than those on whom drugs are found. Therefore, a large number of people who are searched do not carry drugs. As a result, an alienation takes place between those young people and the police. For example, many young people who do not use drugs frequent places where the police believe that drugs are carried, and frequently they are searched. That cannot be good for society.
In my view, the same thing will happen if the power of search is introduced in Scotland in respect of offensive weapons. I believe that there will be an alienation particularly among innocent young people who are stopped and searched. In my opinion, that will create worse law and order, not better.
What worries me is that both in regard to this clause and the detention powers contained in other parts of the Bill, when the law and order situation deteriorates the Government's response will not be that these new powers are not working but, rather, that they are not strong enough and, therefore, should be extended even further. I believe that they will argue that we must have random searching or, as the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) said last night, an even longer period of detention. That is the way in which the Government will respond. The amendment is a small step, which will improve the Bill, but it is not the whole answer. I hope that the Minister will accept it. If he does not, I shall give my support to it.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: The House has been told that in Committee the Under-Secretary gave an assurance that there would be no random searching. I, and I suspect other hon. Members, do not know how many chief

constables, superintendents, chief inspectors, inspectors, sergeants and constables will read the Hansard Committee reports. In those circumstances, perhaps the Solicitor-General for Scotland will indicate whether he is prepared to issue a circular to chief constables through one of his colleagues in the Scottish Office stating that the Government's intention is that the clause should be used only where reasonable grounds have crystallised, rather than in a random way. If he does not do so, there may be a vestige of doubt in the minds of hon. Members that in time police practice, without a definitive expression of opinion from the Scottish Office, may be extended to cover random searching.

8 pm

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn): This is a serious matter. No one who has had my experience—I say this with great respect to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan)—of seeing the tragedy of persons who have been stabbed to death because people took a weapon out at night, or the tragedy of seeing the parents of the child or teenager who has been convicted of such a crime and the destruction of those young lives because of the carrying of a weapon as an act of risk, bravado or folly, and eventually as an act of regret, will do other than regard it as a matter of appalling tragedy for all those involved.
I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) that there should not be random or group searches. I agree that nothing would be worse than an alienation of the police from any member of the public as a result of what becomes an irritation or, apparently, psychologically, a persecution or victimisation. That would be wrong, and I am certain that all chief constables understand that that must be guarded against.
It is not possible to conduct a random search under these provisions, because the constable must have reasonable grounds for suspecing that a person is carrying an offensive weapon. Only then may he search that person without warrant. It is specific that there is no need for guidance from the Secretary of State, any more than there is a need for the guidance of the Secretary of State in


the Road Traffic Act where, again, there is no random breathalysation.
Under the Road Traffic Act there is, of course, a greater risk of that, because a constable has a right to stop a motor car and tell the driver that he is conducting a routine check and that he is looking for bank robbers or stolen cars. Having made that routine check, if a constable smells drink he will have established one ground for having reasonable cause to believe that the person has been drinking. That is a ground which, in a way, allows random breathalyser tests. But that does not happen, and there would be no risk in the case of searches for offensive weapons.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Before the Solicitor-General moves on from that point, may we take it that he is against random breath tests?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not wish to go into that now. We have 40 groups of amendments to discuss and I understand that hon. Members wish to proceed as rapidly as possible. My views on a matter that is not before the House are irrelevant.
To those hon. Members who have any anxiety about the use or meaning of the words "reasonable cause to believe" or "suspect", I point out that those words are used in the Prevention of Crime Act, about which there has never been any complaint. I trust that I have excluded the possibility of random tests, because that is contrary to the clause.
The word "group" can mean anything that is more than one. It could mean two people. For instance, if two men are seen running from a house in which the victims have been stabbed, a constable has reasonable cause to suppose that one or other of the two men has a weapon. That is a reasonable ground on which to suspect. One could say that those two men were a group.
The use of the word "group" would exclude what is essential in law, namely, that in each case the matter must be judged, but it must meet the requirement and judgment of the clause. The constable has to justify his opinion that he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person is carrying an offensive weapon. I do not believe—these words will go out

to them—that chief constables will be other than very harsh when any person in their force departs from the requirements of the clause and indulges in searches without reasonable grounds.
It was said that Conservative Members have an obsession with the idea that people carry weapons. I do not find it an obsession. I wish that people did not carry weapons. There are many emotional and psychological reasons why people carry weapons, but the practice creates an abominable amount of tragedy in many families in Scotland, and if we can do anything to stop it, we must do so.

Mr. Donald Dewar: The Solicitor-General will recall that in earlier speeches he gave the impression—perhaps inadvertently—that he was thinking in terms of searches in a particular locus. The shorthand way of illustrating that is that a constable may think that a person has carried a weapon into a dance hall, where there may be 200 or 300 people. He may think that there is reasonable cause for suspicion that somewhere in that large crowd someone is carrying a weapon, and that that would justify sealing the hall and searching everyone inside. I understand the Solicitor-General's point, but he is definitively ruling out a wider dragnet operation which may give rise to friction.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Certainly, and that may be self-defeating, unless the first person searched was the one carrying the weapon. The person who was carrying the weapon may have disposed of it quickly. I exclude that sort of carpet bombing concept. If I may use a wartime term, it must be pinpoint bombing, rather than carpet bombing. However, let us remember the tragedy that arises from the carrying of offensive weapons, and let the message go out from this House tonight that no hon. Member approves the carrying of weapons. It brings great tragedy to many people.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Solicitor-General's remarks have been helpful. I am at one with him in respect of the tragedies caused by people carrying offensive weapons. They are tragedies to both the victims and the assailants, because what may start as a


friendly argument sometimes ends in tragedy.
Nevertheless, the Opposition do not like this clause. They are extremely apprehensive about it, and at the end of the day they believe that it will do more harm than good. It is a pity that the Government did not accept the recommendations of the Scottish Council on Crime, which recommended that this provision should come into effect for a trial period. The Solicitor-General will appreciate that all hon. Members, as Members of Parliament and ordinary citizens, will look carefully at the way in which the clause is used in practice. I do not like the idea of the Secretary of State—even if he has the authority, which I doubt—giving guidance to chief constables. That is something that we ought to avoid.
Nevertheless, what has been said by my hon. Friends and by the Solicitor-General is extremely useful in getting it over to chief constables and members of the force that the provision is not in any way intended to allow random or group searches or anything of that kind, but that there has to be a reasonable suspicion that the person being searched is carrying a weapon.
I am not sure what my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) will want to do about the amendment. My hope is that, with the assurances from the Solicitor-General, he will in due course, after he has made his comments, ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The debate has been extremely useful, and I hope that it will go out from all parts of the House that whatever our different views about the principle—and we shall not agree on that now—we shall be looking extremely carefully at the way in which the clause is to be implemented in practice. I hope that if we find that it is being abused, representations to the Government will be sympathetically received. If the clause were to be abused there is no doubt that it could do extremely serious damage to police and community relations.

Mr. Buchan: I, too, am pleased with what the Solicitor-General said; indeed, he said what I hoped he would say. He made it perfectly clear that he would except the chief constable of Scotland to deal harshly with any person who departs

from the meaning and significance of the clause. He has made it perfectly clear that the meaning and significance of the clause have nothing to do with random or group searching. He has reiterated that it must only be where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the person. He has rejected the concept of the hypothetical case, where a knife has been seen in a dance hall, which could provide an argument for making a search. I am pleased that the Solicitor-General has made this statement. He will recognise, however, that I still object to the clause as a whole.
I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is on the side of the angels. One recalls that a year ago his amendment about search precipitated the inclusion of the clause in the Bill.
The hon. Member made a point in relation to circulars to chief constables. My understanding is that the Government are so firm on this matter that they are saying, in effect, that there is not even a necessity for circulars; it is absolutely clear that the clause prevents any group or random searching from taking place.
I hope that the Solicitor-General's statement will be read by chief constables. I also hope that in meeting them and in discussions with them he will ensure that they know exactly what has been said here tonight. So keen were they to make the clause known that they considered having posters displayed throughout Scotland warning young people that they might be subject to search. It would therefore be useful if chief constables and local authorities were made aware of what has been said by the Solicitor-General this evening.
Knowing my intense moderation, hon. Members will know that I shall be seeking to ask leave to withdraw my amendment, although I do not like the clause. I do not believe in hollow victories; I believe even less in hollow defeats. The Solicitor-General has done much more than I could have achieved by a defeat in the Lobbies on my amendment. If not delighted, we are certainly pleased with what he said.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Clause 6

Judicial Examination

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 6, line 33, at end add
but no judicial examination shall take place unless the express consent of the accused person is obtained in writing.'.
The amendment gives us an opportunity to look at some of the implications of the return to Scotland of a form of judicial examination about which a number of us have fundamental doubts.
There will be no dispute that if the House were to accept the amendment it would make a considerable difference to the operation of the judicial mechanism. I accept—I have said this on previous occasions—that the intention of official examination is in many ways attractive and plausible. Put very briefly, it is that at the very first possible opportunity, on the day following arrest, an accused party shall appear before a sheriff. At that stage he will be asked to reveal any special defence—whether it be self-defence, alibi or impeachment—that he may have in his mind. He will also be asked to deny or put his gloss upon or give his explanation of any extra-judicial confession that has been obtained by the police and may be used at his trial—the idea being that this will make it particularly difficult for a person of evil disposition to invent a special defence as he lies in Barlinnie or sits at home awaiting his trial. It will also give a certain added force to his quarrel with what the police allege that he said if, at the first possible opportunity, he advances his caveats and qualifications or denials.
On the face of it, that all sounds extremely reliable. The difficulty arises when we consider the effect of the mechanism. We then begin to see that there are very great difficulties about it. One of them is that a fundamental right of anyone accused of a criminal charge in Scotland is the right of silence. The onus of proof lies upon the prosecution. If a man wants to hold his peace as an accused and leave the Crown to prove its case, he is fully entitled to do so, but if he exercises his right of silence and says nothing at the judicial examination, he runs the risk of adverse comment—

either by the procurator fiscal or by the judge or sheriff—at the subsequent trial.
It will be a matter of dispute between me and the Under-Secretary of State or the Solicitor-General that adverse comment from a judge along the lines of "You may think, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that it was really remarkable that the accused did not take the opportunity at his judicial examination to put forward his explanation", could have a formidable effect. Therefore, to say that the right of silence is preserved in the clause is to make a dishonest play upon words. If that right exists, it is still true to say that if it is exercised an accused persons puts himself at hazard and may pay a considerable penalty.
That, briefly, is the reason why we have fundamental doubts about the clause. That is why we think that the amendment is worth pursuing and urge that it be given serious consideration. Anyone putting himself at that hazard as an accused person should do it in the full knowledge of what he is doing. He should also have an opportunity of saying
No, I do not wish to be part of this process.
Apart from these arguments of principle that I have advanced, I regard the whole concept of the clause as unsatisfactory, because I believe that it is an unworkable and thoroughly impractical piece of organisational machinery.
I have practised for some years in Glasgow sheriff court. It is a busy court; at times almost a chaotic court. It is doubly important that what is proposed should be voluntary, without everyone on petition automatically being pushed into this position. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) shakes his head, and is entitled to do so, but in the maelstrom of bail appeals, full committals, pleading diets, trials, and so on, in a sheriff court, the problems of getting statements of alleged extrajudicial confessions circulated, of getting the shorthand writers organised, and so on, will be considerable. I think that I speak for many people who practise in the sheriff courts when I say that it will be extremely difficult to make the process workable.
Our objection is in principle; that is the important thing. That is why it is important that the accused should have


a right to say whether he wishes to be put through this form of interrogation—an interrogation in which the procurator fiscal will have the whip hand in deciding what line of questioning there is to be, and where the defence is confined—despite the best efforts of the House of Lords—to clearing up ambiguities and matters of that kind.
We believe that people should not be forced into this position, where their right of silence is imperilled and where, in a sense, the onus of proof shifts. In that specialised and important sense we are striking at the presumption of innocence. At the moment one can make any judicial declaration at a full committal hearing. It is not as though this is giving a right to an accused; it is forcing him to make a judicial declaration in a way that may be dangerous to his ultimate defence. That is something of which we should be extremely chary.
I believe that there is a strong argument for accepting the amendment and writing into the clause a provision that if it is to be implemented at all it must be with the agreement and express consent of the accused, which shall be given in writing.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If my recollection does not deceive me, we have been over this ground before. The point is simple. As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, it is important that a person should have to declare his position right away. He knows his position right away. If somebody says that I murdered granny on 15 September, I shall know whether I did. There is no difficulty in that situation.

Mr. Maxton: In a complicated fraud case, for instance, in which the police may say to a man "What entry did you make in a book five years ago?", can we possibly expect that man to make an immediate response?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I could not expect that person to give one in those circumstances, but I should know whether I had committed fraud five years ago. Whether I am to be caught out by an entry in a book is at my peril. It is a strange man who thinks that he has when he has not. I know some people who think that they have not when they

have, but I do not know of anybody who does it the other way round.
This is not in any way a question of disturbing the right to silence. The concept that the Crown has to prove its case means that a person can say "I am innocent and I remain innocent. If you think that you can prove something to the contrary, you cannot. There cannot be any evidence because I did not do it."
The hon. Member for Garscadden knows that nothing is easier for the establishment of a false defence and the likelihood of the guilty man being acquitted than that he should not have to state his position until he knows the fences over which he has to jump. There is no possible prejudice to any innocent person from stating his position at the moment that he is charged when everything is fresh in his recollection. The amendment would undermine the whole purpose of judicial examination—an ancient concept in the law of Scotland, approved by the Thomson committee, and a matter that we discussed upstairs.

Mr. Dewar: I shall certainly not press the amendment to a Division.
I do not know whether the Solicitor-General has committed fraud at any point in his career, but I have strong views about judicial examination. I shall no doubt have an opportunity in the not-too-distant future of having personal experience in the courts of watching it in operation. I shall certainly report to the hon. and learned Gentleman how it works in practice. I have my doubts, and the doubts persist.
I think that the Solicitor-General oversimplified the matter. It is often difficult to know immediately whether there is a special defence. Even a simple matter of self-defence can become complicated until one has the full precognitions and has been able to disentangle the events. Often an alibi is a matter of trying to remember where one was some time ago, even with the aid of a complaint, which may not be specific about the time at which it is alleged the offence took place. There are real problems which the Solicitor-General, in his usual flamboyant way, has glossed over. The proof of the pudding will be seen in the months ahead when this law comes into operation. I believe that the Solicitor-General may


have some embarrassing lessons to learn about the reality.

With these forebodings, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 7, line 32, after 'made' insert
': and further provided that such matters as mentioned in paragraph (a) above may only be admitted in evidence if questions under this paragraph have been put to the accused.'.
First, there appears to be a misprint. The reference to "paragraph (a)" should be to "paragraph (b)". I dare say that that has already been observed by the Government Front Bench.
The ground to which the amendment is directed is similar to that referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). In consequence, I can be fairly brief.
The object of the amendment is to spell out specifically the right of the accused at the earliest opportunity to contest or dispute an extra-judicial confession. As the hon. Member for Garscadden pointed out, that, indeed, is the object that the Government have in mind. I am not suggesting that it is not. However, the object is to make it more specific than it already, and in particular to remove from the prosecution any discretion whether it may deem it advantageous not to raise certain matters forthwith.
Like the hon. Member for Garscadden, I oppose any move to weaken the right of silence. Indeed, amendment No. 160, in my name and the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), is directed to that aspect. The amendment is moved on the assumption that clause 6 will stand unchanged but that its object is to protect still further the right of the accused.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendment is superfluous. The whole purpose of the judicial examination is, first, as I have already stated and, secondly, to put to the accused for his admission, denial or comment any statement that he is alleged to have made. There may be further statements after the first judicial examination and it may not always be convenient or necessary to

have a second judicial examination. The amendment would exclude such statements, contrary to the law of evidence. Therefore, it is superfluous. I think that the safeguards are sufficient.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 8, line 8, leave out
'With the permission of the sheriff,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 24, in page 8, line 13, after 'question', insert
'relevant to the charge or'.
No. 25, in page 8, line 14, at end insert
'or, with the permission of the sheriff, any other question'.

Mr. Buchan: This amendment seeks to ameliorate a clause which we regard as thoroughly bad. It seeks to restore some balance of equity between the accused and the accuser. The clause brings a new element into our system of justice—the element of inquisition. In the process of doing that, the Government have not only severely dented the right to silence, about which we talked at great length in Committee, but have altered the balance of equity between the accused and the accuser.
Amendment No. 23 seeks to remove the words
With the permission of the sheriff
in relation to the defence solicitor. The prosecutor may put questions directed to an extra-judicial confession or the circumstances of the accusation. The defence solicitor can put such questions only with the permission of the sheriff. That of itself distorts the equity of balance. Freedom is given to the prosecutor to follow up a line of interrogation. There is no such freedom given to the defence unless the judge gives the defending solicitor permission to do so. That is slightly different from the judge ruling on the admissibility of evidence in a court of law.
Secondly, the amendment expresses the wish that the solicitor for the accused shall be able to ask any question that is relevant to the charge. It is not wished to limit that freedom to the clarification of ambiguity. The amendment is linked with


amendment No. 25, which if agreed to would give the accused an opportunity to answer any question that he has previously refused to answer or any other relevant question.
The amendments, if accepted, will restore a certain equity for the defence and the rights of an accused's solicitor.

There are other countries where there is the full panoply of an inquisitorial system. The Solicitor-General will have read the appendix to the memorandum of the Law Society, which states:

"I understand that in certain countries where there is an inquisitorial system the accused's agent at the examination stage will have had the opportunity of at least consulting the dossier against his client."

The clause runs counter to other countries' inquisitorial systems and counter to the Convention on Human Rights. It runs counter to the convention on the issue of equity. The convention has stated that
an inherent element of 'fair trial' was the procedural equality of the accused with the prosecutor and that there had to be 'equality of arms'.

The Law Society is right. The clause is wrong. There is no "equality of arms" between the conditions facing the defence and those facing the prosecution in this procedure. We have tabled moderate amendments to try to ensure that something of balance will be introduced. If the Government wish to keep this thoroughly bad clause there must be some element of fairness that will allow an accused's solicitor freedom of questioning. He should not be restricted by the terms of the clause and on the say-so of the judge apart from the clarification of ambiguities. He, in the same way as the prosecutor, should be able to extend the questioning in the proper way to defend his client.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) spoke of "the line of interrogation". If he considers subsection (2), he will understand that interrogation is specifically included. The question must not be designed to challenge the truth of anything said by the accused. There must be no reiteration of a question that he has refused to answer, and there can be no leading questions.
We could have a long debate on what the hon. Gentleman called the "equality of arms". Although there is theoretically an equality of arms in that the side that calls the witness may examine him but cannot lead, and the other side that cross-examines him may lead and make the questions into evidence with" n'est pas?" on the end, nevertheless, the prosecution, which calls the main witnesses and the bulk of the witnesses, cannot lead any of them, while the defence may cross-examine, lead or suggest in all its questions. In a way there is no equality of arms within our system in the reverse direction.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that in judicial examination there should be open questions with the single purpose, apart from statements, of establishing the position of the accused with regard to the offence at the earliest possible moment, so that we exclude the abominable and, I regret to say, widespread practice that frequently results in a miscarriage of justice due to the acquittal of the guilty and the establishment of false defences, which is so much easier when it is known what one has to explain away before putting forward a point of view.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that subsection (2) will ensure that there is a complete safeguard for the accused and that there will be no harrying or interrogation. I hope that he will ask leave to withdraw his amendment. He should have a word with his: hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who thinks that the measure will be logistically difficult to achieve in Glasgow sheriff court. If the hon. Gentleman's amendment were accepted, and if any questions were allowed by the defence, the judicial examination could last longer than the trial.

Mr. Buchan: The difficulty is that we are never sure when the Solicitor-General for Scotland is serious. He made an extraordinary defence. He said that there was no equality of arms between the prosecution and the defence, because an accusatorial trial was loaded in the interests of the defence. That is what should happen. The accused should find that the procedure is loaded in his favour. The function of justice should be to clear the innocent. rather than to prove the guilty. That balance should be preserved.
Everything possible should be done in defence of the innocent. If the Solicitor-General for Scotland calls in aid such a


time-honoured pattern of British justice, this must be a bad clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman has almost tempted me to divide the House. He is tempting me, and I am easily tempted by him. The hon. and learned Gentleman questioned the term "interrogation". However, by definition there will be limitations on the line of "questioning". We know that such procedures are not on all fours with cross-examination in an open court. We know that restrictions will continue to exist even if the amendments are accepted.
Our amendments are minor and moderate. They seek to restore a balance of arms within the limitations already laid down by subsection (2). That subsection is no defence against equity. We seek no more than that. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has rejected the amendment. I hope that his logistics are right, and that the number of possible cases will ensure that the measure cannot be applied in Scotland. This is a serious issue.
I rest on the case made by the Law Society and by the European Convention on Human Rights. Even at this late stage I hope that the Government will withdraw an unbalanced partisan and prejudiced clause. For the first time, it tilts the balance of equity away from the defence—where it belongs—and in favour of the prosecution. It is unprecedented and should be withdrawn. These amendments alone cannot defeat it. We have other amendments that may win victories.
Very reluctantly, and in the interests of progress, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment to this objectionable clause.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 160, in page 8, leave out lines 15 to 25.
The amendment seeks to remove subsection (5). Since clause 6 was presented in the other place, it has been considerably changed. That also applies to subsection (5), which the amendment seeks to excise. The subsection restricts the prosecutor's and judge's entitlement to comment at a subsequent trial on the accused's failure to answer questions that were put to him at his judicial examination. The amended clause allows such comment only when the accused or a

defence witness seeks to give evidence which properly could have been articulated in the judicial examination in answer to questions which the accused did not answer.
Nevertheless, the clause, even as it is amended or diluted, represents an erosion of the right of silence of an accused person. That is the essential criticism of clause 6. The majority in the Faculty of Advocates criticised the clause on that ground. One could not say that the faculty represents a group of civil rights protestors. It has a proper regard for the rights of the accused person. If the subsection were deleted, the Bill would be improved.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The clause contains a safeguard in the subsection which the hon. Gentleman seeks to delete. It says that
only when and in so far as the accused (or any witness called on his behalf) in evidence avers something which could have been stated appropriately in answer to that question.
An accused might be asked "Were you attacked by the deceased or the complainer?" If the accused declines to answer and says later, in self-defence, that the chap attacked him with a knife, he cannot argue that there was a reason for not answering the question originally, because what happened was within his knowledge. The event was more recent when he was first asked than it was when he was asked later.
One can think of a myriad examples. If an accused is asked "Were you insured?" and he says "No", the prosecutor will ask "Why not?" The accused may say "Because I thought that my mother was insured to cover me to drive the car". The accused would then be asked "Why did you not say that at the time?" Under the amendment the accused would be able to say "Because I did not have an opportunity to check whether the insurance covered me". If the accused gives a rational answer it will not fall within the proviso, and therefore it cannot be commented upon.
The purpose of the provision is to prevent the falsification of defences. It is essential to understand that nobody wants an innocent man to be convicted. Nobody can say that with more virility or voracity than I. However, a large number of people are acquitted wrongly. That is no


more in the interests of justice than that a person should be wrongly convicted.
Anything that we can do to ensure that a genuine defence is stated when the recollection of the accused person is fresh, and which gives him the opportunity to record it, must be right. Any attempt to wait and see whether one can wriggle out from a false explanation is bad. One must remember that attempting to make a false defence might prejudice the case of other accused persons who might be sitting to one's right in the dock and for whom it might be too late to answer the case. Anything that we can do to prevent that is in the interests of justice. I can see no situation in which it could possibly be to the prejudice of an innocent man.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10

Identification parades

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 13, leave out lines 13 to 15.
An identity parade may be held by the prosecution without having been viewed by witnesses who the defence consider should have been able to view the parade. It would be wrong if a fuller parade was denied. Under subsection (2) the sheriff is given discretion to refuse a parade if the prosecution parade has already been viewed by defence witnesses. Therefore if lines 13 to 15 were deleted the effectiveness of the Bill would not be reduced.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The amendment should be considered in the context of the whole of clause 10, which for the first time provides important new rights for an accused person. Until now, if the prosecution has declined to hold an identification parade, an accused person has had no right to insist on one. Clause 10 gives the accused the right to apply to the court for an identification parade, even if the prosecution has refused to hold one. It also provides the accused with legal aid to ensure that it is a meaningful right.
The only scenario that the hon. Gentleman suggests in support of his amendment is where the prosecution has had an identification parade or declined to

have one and the defence has already had one, and where subsequently a second identification parade is thought to be appropriate. He suggests that there may be new witnesses of importance. If an identification parade has been held and witnesses are brought forward who are considered important, in most cases the prosecution will be only too happy to have a second identification parade if there was a point of substance at stake. Even if the prosecution decline to do so, there is nothing to stop the accused at the trial using as defence witneses the persons who have come forward to identify or not identify the suspects involved.
Clause 10 provides an important right for the accused. If the prosecution has the right to have an identification parade and the accused has an identical right, with full legal aid, that is a reasonable balance, which meets the public interest. The clause does not prevent new witnesses being called as defence witnesses at any trial in the future. It is a sensible approach. I hope that on reflection the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press his amendment.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14

Prevention of delay in trials

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 168, in page 17, line 30, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 31 and insert
'for section 331 of the 1975 Act there shall be inserted the following sections—
 Maximum periods within which trials to be commenced.
331.—(1) All proceedings under this part of this Act shall, unless any statute fixes any other period, and subject to the provisions of section 331A below, be commenced within the period of six months after the date of the commission of the offence, and, in the case of a continuing offence, within the period of six months after the last date thereof; and it shall be competent in such case to include the entire period during which the offence has occurred.
(2) A trial in any proceedings under this section shall be concluded within a period of twelve months from the date of the commission of the offence.".'.


The clause is a useful one, which improves a number of safeguards of fundamental importance to those of us who are interested in criminal defence work. In particular, it deals with the 110-day rule and the prevention of delays in trials.
Subsection (2) substitutes a new section 331A in the 1975 Act and brings in a useful equivalent, in summary procedure, to the 110-day rule, so that a trial has to be started within 40 days if the accused person is in custody. That is an overdue reform. I am trying, through the amendment, to push the boat out a little further and to tempt the Minister to burnish his halo further.
I seek not only a new section 331A but a replacement for section 331 of the 1975 Act, which provides a six-month limit on statutory offences. A trial has to start within six months. The amendment suggests that there should be a similar limit of six months in the case of non-statutory offences.
There is a glaring anomaly in the present situation. If, in the course of my family celebrations in Glasgow at the weekend, I bomp a policeman in the face, I can be charged either under the Police (Scotland) Act or with assault under common law. If I am charged under the Act, section 331 of the 1975 Act provides that my trial must commence within six months. Otherwise there can be no trial, and the matter will lapse. If a prosecution is brought under common law there is no such time limit.
The amendment provides that the six-month limit should apply to all summary complaints and not just to those brought under specific statutory provisions. Of course, it would mean that there would have to be less drift in court administration. We should have to pull our socks up and make sure that trials got started. But that is another advantage, on top of the arguments of equity and consistency, for accepting the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was good enough to acknowledge the major new rights for accused persons in Scotland that are encompassed in clause 14. He pointed out that an accused person who, in solemn cases, can be held for a maximum of 110 days preceding his trial

will now, in summary cases be able to be held in custody for a maximum of 40 days In solemn cases a prosecution has to be brought within a miximum of 12 months.
Those are major reforms which it has not yet been possible to make in other parts of the United Kingdom, and they indicate the Government's great concern and anxiety to ensure that for those who are in custody or under threat of prosecution the matter should be resolved at the earliest possible opportunity, in order that they should know how they stand and that the public interest is protected.
I exempt the hon. Member for Garscadden, but those who have made criticisms of other parts of the Bill have a responsibility to ensure that a balanced view is presented. Some of those outside the House who have made wild comments about the Bill have not been prepared to acknowledge the major advances in the rights of accused persons that are to be found in various parts of the measure.
There is no objection in principle to what the amendment seeks to provide. In statutory cases at the present time, a maximum of six months is permitted. Unfortunately, the past few years have seen a substantial increase in the number of cases dealt with by sheriff courts. There is substantial pressure on those courts. It is only a problem of administration that prevents us from implementing the additional reform that the hon. Member for Garscadden suggests.
We hope to introduce such a reform one day, but the hon. Member will know from his considerable experience in sheriff courts, particularly in the West of Scotland, that the burden that would be imposed on sheriff courts would be far more than they could cope with. I do not object to the principle of what the hon. Gentleman seeks. The Government have shown their good faith, both in solemn cases and in the other reforms that the clause encompasses.
Given the clear evidence of the Government's good faith and our desire to make all possible progress, within the administrative capacity of the courts, I hope that the hon. Member for Garscadden will agree that the imposition of such an obligation at this stage would be unreasonable, even though the reasons in favour of the proposal are to be commended.

Mr. Dewar: I anticipated that the administrative argument would be used. I am glad to have confirmation that there is no difference between us in principle. Even in Glasgow sheriff court the average delay in a summary trial is probably only three or four months between the first calling and the trial date. Given the Government pledge that law and order is exempt from the normal stringencies and the sceptical eye turned on public expenditure, I would have thought it possible to introduce my proposal even at this stage. I hope that the Minister will recognise that this is a matter on which I shall continue to nag when the opportunity occurs. In order to get me off his back he should take an early opportunity to see whether the administrative difficulties can be overcome.
I do not wish to press the matter to a vote at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17

Failure of Accused to Attend Diet in Summary Procedure

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 169, in page 19, line 29, leave out from '(2)' to 'an' in line 30.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland undertook in Committee to consider amending the clause to remove any possibility of double jeopardy. We felt that there was no substantial risk of double jeopardy in view of the Interpretation Act 1978. However, in order to make the matter abundantly clear, I know that the House will agree that we should deal with the matter as proposed by deleting the phrase:
Without prejudice to any power which the court may have to deal with the accused for contempt".
This clarifies the matter beyond doubt. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I thank the Minister for honouring the commitment given in Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends would like to express our gratitude to the Minister for bringing forward the amendment

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

Trial May Proceed in Accused's Absence if he Misconducts Himself

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 165, in page 23, line 10 at end add
'and following such appointment, the court shall allow a reasonable adjournment to enable the counsel or solicitor so appointed to take instruction from the accused.'.
This is not what might be called a tremendous, earth-shattering amendment. The Minister might say that it is superfluous on the grounds that this would, in any event, happen. In my time in the House I have always been told by my legal friends that one should not assume, in drafting a law, that people will behave in a reasonable fashion, but that the law should specifically say what they do. Otherwise, there will be awkward people who will not do it.
There is some question about the need for this clause at all. It is, presumably, prima facie a bad thing to proceed with a trial in the absence of the accused. If the accused does not have legal representation and legal representation has to be appointed for him, I would have thought it right and proper and clear beyond a peradventure that there should be an opportunity for the solicitor so appointed to be able to consult the accused.

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that there is an inherent right at common law for the court to grant such an adjournment whenever it considers it reasonable. There is no doubt, in the circumstances that this clause envisages, that the court would exercise that right. It would not be an entirely new situation. There have been, over the years, the situation where either the accused has decided to dispense with his legal representative in the course of a trial or, he having not been represented and having represented himself until a certain stage, he has expressed a desire to have a legal representative.
There have been many occasions on which this has happened. I cannot think of a single occasion when a court would not have granted a reasonable adjournment to allow instructions to be given. The court has this right and there is not the slightest question of its not


being exercised. Although I cannot prove it, I suspect that if a court refused to exercise that right that would be substantial grounds for appeal after any subsequent conviction. I am sure that the interests of the accused are properly safeguarded.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22

RESTRICTIONS ON REPORT OF PROCEED INGS INVOLVING PERSON UNDER 16

9 pm

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 23, line 17, leave out second 'the' and insert 'a',

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 32 to 34.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendment No. 170 is a minor drafting amendment which has no policy implications. However, amendments Nos. 32 to 34 are far more substantial. Those hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will remember that we had a vigorous debate on the question of the reporting of child witnesses and child offenders by the press in the event of their conviction. There was a considerable debate and a number of my hon. Friends expressed the strong view that there should be an opportunity in certain circumstances for identities to be revealed.
The Government have given considerable thought to the points that have been made, and the amendments before the House now represent one aspect of the Government's response. Our proposal is that children who are witnesses—those who are neither the offenders nor those named in the charge—to a particular incident involving adult offenders may have their identities published. However, there will still be a residual right for the court to prohibit publication, if the judge thinks that that is appropriate. For example, there could be a situation in which a child, purely by accident, sees a crime taking place while he or she is walking down the street. Clearly he or she would be a witness to that crime. It is some-

times in the interests of that child that his identity should be published—perhaps his actions will be commended for bravery by the court. Also there may be other circumstances in which it is natural and proper that his identity should be published. However, I emphasise that there is a residual right for the judge to prohibit publication in special circumstances so that the interests of the child are fully protected. Nevertheless, the restriction on the freedom of the press in this area is removed. I am sure that there would be general agreement that it would be unreasonable to insist upon the restriction.
There is another area in which we have sought to take action, although legislation is not required. When I met the newspaper editors they indicated that it was all very well for the court to have discretion in all cases to allow publication, but the problem in the past in summary cases, where these restrictions have applied for many years, was that no one had drawn the judge's attention to the fact that he had this discretion. All that has happened is that a child has been convicted, the prohibition has been enforced and the judge has never had drawn to his attention his rights to allow publication in particular circumstances. Clearly the defence do not refer to it and the prosecutor has no particular interest in making it known to the judge.
In order to respond to that legitimate concern of the press, the Lord Advocate has indicated that he intends to issue a standing instruction to all advocate deputes and fiscals in order to ensure that in all circumstances where a child has been convicted of an offence and where publication would not be permitted unless the judge used his discretion to allow it, the fiscal or the depute or whoever is responsible for the prosecution will draw to the attention of the judge his right, if he so wishes, to allow publication. I emphasise that it will not be the function of the prosecution to encourage publication. His function will simply be to remind the judge that he has this right and it is then entirely for the judge to decide the issue. That at least will ensure that the issue is considered on its merits on each occasion. That is not unreasonable.

Mr. Buchan: Why is the Under-Secretary so keen to send out this instruction when his right hon. Friend, in relation to


chief constables and their subordinates in the matter of search, was not prepared to accept the suggestion that a circular should be sent out to guide chief constables on that important matter? Yet on this issue, which concerns the privacy of young people, the Government are prepared to send out an instruction that the matter should be drawn to the attention of judges.

Mr. Rifkind: I answer the hon. Member with a simple explanation. The relationship between the Secretary of State and the chief constables is different from that which exists between the Lord Advocate and his staff. The relationship between the Secretary of State and chief constables is a delicate one. Chief constables have full autonomy. They manage their own responsibilities. It is quite wrong for the Secretary of State to seek to instruct, or to bring pressure to bear upon, chief constables.

Mr. Buchan: It is not to instruct but to inform.

Mr. Rifkind: It is to bring pressure because that is what will be meaningful. That is why that form of action is suggested. But when we are dealing with the relationship of the Lord Advocate with the deputes and the fiscals we must remember that they are his staff. He is responsible and they act under his instructions. It is right that it should be so. That is the relationship that is intended to exist.
Therefore, it is only sensible that if it is thought appropriate that the judge should be reminded of his opportunity to use his discretion in that way that is the way the system should operate. The Government feel that this is a reasonable balance between two reasonable points of view. This is a delicate problem because these are statutory restrictions on the freedom of the press. If we are to impose such restrictions—and the Government accept that they are necessary—it is not unreasonable that the judge should be reminded of his discretion to exempt a particular situation from prohibition in circumstances that justify it. That is the intention of the proposals, and on that basis I commend the amendments to the House.

Mr. Millan: The Under-Secretary's statement is extremely unsatisfactory.
First, I deal with the question of the contents of the clause and the nature of the amendments moved by the Under-Secretary. I say straight away that I would prefer that the clause was left as it was.
There has been a ridiculous press campaign on the issue and I am sure that the Minister has caved in to some extent. Some of the humbug that one reads in the press on these matters is nauseating. Having said that, I make the point that, if the Minister was about to cave in. what is in the amendment is probably the least offensive thing that he could have proposed because he is dealing with witnesses rather than an accused young person.
The Minister is also dealing with cases where proceedings are not against a young person. We are really talking about an adult offence. I notice that amendment No. 32 provides that the judge can say, despite the new provision, that if there is to be no publication he need not give reasons. The judge does not even have to say that he is satisfied that it is in the public interest. He is, therefore, left with a considerable amount of discretion.
Though I do not like these amendments, and though I think it is a great pity that the clause is being amended at all, I do not think that they will do tremendous damage, although there may be many cases where it will be undesirable that a witness should be identified.
I find the second part of the Under-Secretary's statement not only unsatisfactory but offensive, because the Lord Advocate will instruct prosecutors to tell judges their business. One must assume that judges know the law. In some cases that may be a naive assumption, but it is one which I have so far made. One must assume that judges know perfectly well that when they deal with young people under this clause there will be no publication.
Judges must also know that if they wish publication—or do not wish to prevent publication—they are entitled to decide the issue. If I were a judge and some young prosecutor proposed to instruct me in my business I would take an extremely dim view of it. I do not suppose that I could stop him from telling me what I should be doing, but I do not think that my response to him would


be agreeable. If the same prosecutor were to keep reminding me—as he presumably would have to since he is under instructions from the Lord Advocate to tell the same judge the same story every time a particular case comes up before him where this provision would be relevant—the prosecutor would get short shrift.
The Government are making an extraordinary and foolish proposal. It would have been much more dignified if they had simply told the press that it was talking nonsense that was contrary to the public interest which the Government are charged to defend, particularly the interests of young people. They do not exist to give in to the prejudices of the press. On that basis they should have made no change.
The change in the clause is bad enough, although it is comparatively minor. The Government's other proposal is silly and offensive. I hope that the Lord Advocate, who is basically a sensible man—I say that in a friendly sense, with no intention of being patronising—and who takes a balanced view of these matters will, for the sake of his reputation, not proceed with this ridiculous proposal.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for having fulfilled the commitment that he gave in Committee to look at the matter again. In the amendment he and my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General have obviously reconsidered the matter on the basis of the argument advanced, and for that we are grateful.
I still have certain reservations about the clause. They are the same as those I expressed in Committee. In spite of the protest from the Labour side, I do not believe that there is any difference between the two sides on the purposes of the clause—

Mr. Harry Ewing: Do not incriminate us.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman asks me not to incriminate him. I find it difficult to do otherwise on most occasions. The purpose of the clause is to protect young people. That purpose can be adequately served by the law as it stands. The right hon. Member for

Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) made a profound comment. He said that we must assume that judges know the law. He was saying that judges should be able to apply the law at their discretion without having to be told by anybody what to do. That is the existing position. This is a question of important principle, because, as the Under-Secretary said, it is a delicate matter when we legislate to restrain freedom. It is even more delicate when we legislate to create restraints on freedom in general terms, where the power is already vested in the court to create those same restraints in particular circumstances.
It is always better to leave these matters to the court and the judge who knows the particular circumstances at the time. We must assume that the judges know the law. I believe that they are capable of applying their discretion fairly in this matter. It would have been better to leave it to the judges to protect young people. I hope that although my hon. Friend has gone so far by tabling the amendment—ironically, in the amendment he is creating the sort of discretion for judges that I argue should be applied across the board—he will consider how the clause operates in practice, so that perhaps at a later date we shall be able to restore the situation.

Mr. Maxton: I begin by making a technical point. I do not understand why amendment No. 32 is placed where it is. It makes nonsense of the wording of the clause. If the Minister wanted to table that amendment, I do not understand why it was not applied to line 19, where the clause provides that the name of a person under the age of 16 shall not be reported as "being a witness therein". Why did the Minister not amend line 19? There is a certain amount of tautology now, because at one point the clause says that the name of a witness under 16 years of age cannot be revealed under any circumstances, and five or six lines further on it says that it can be. That is bad drafting, and I hope that the Minister will look at that point again.
My major objection is that the press poodles on the Conservative Back Benches barked and the Minister caved in on an important principle. The only


example that he gave as a reason for producing the amendment was that of a child in the street seeing a crime, perhaps performing an act of some bravery by stopping a thief, and then being a witness. That is already covered in the clause, which states that
the court may at any stage of the proceedings if satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so, direct that the requirements of this section shall be dispensed with",
and the case may be reported. If the court considers that the public should be informed about the case, it may direct that it should be reported.
The Minister has reversed that process. Instead of saying that in certain circumstances a court may direct that the name of a witness under the age of 16 may be given, he has said that a witness under the age of 16, as long as the person who is being prosecuted is more than 16, shall be reported except under special circumstances. That is reversing the basic intent of the clause. That is wrong. I should prefer it not to be a decision for the judge. There will be cases, for example those involving incest, rape and sexual offences, and cases where there has been intimidation of witnesses—and witnesses under 16 are more likely to be intimidated than those over 16—where reporting could create serious problems.
The clause was adequate as it stood, with one exception, to which we have tabled an amendment. I always find the cries of "press freedom" phoney and false. The press is not free. It is owned and controlled by remarkably few people. Much of it is scurrilous. It is aimed at titillating and not at genuine reporting. The more that we keep children out of the newspapers, the better. The amendment does not improve the clause.

Mr. Peter Fraser: The contribution of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) has confirmed my feeling that it is right to have misgivings about the clause. In Committee I advanced the reasons why I thought that the Government were making a grave error in the clause. I do not intend, on Report, to detain the House with a repetition of those arguments. I wish to make a few short observations. I accept that my hon. Friend the Minister was absolutely right to bring before the House, in this clause, an opportunity to rectify an existing anomaly between the

reporting in solemn procedure and the reporting in summary procedure in Scotland. It is difficult to understand why different tests should apply in one form of procedure as opposed to the other. They should be the same.
As hon. Members who served on the Committee will know, I adopt an opposite view to that taken by the Government. It would have been better if the Government had allowed the existing onus in solemn procedure to continue, namely, that the publication of any court proceedings involving children should be permitted unless the judge ruled differently. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) I found the observations of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) quite extraordinary. We recognise that a judge who has listened to the whole trial is in the best position to make a decision about what is in the public interest, what should be published, and what should not be published. In those circumstances, it would have been better for the existing onus in solemn procedure in Scotland to have been left as it was. That is the direction in which the public interest and open justice lie.
The hon. Member for Maxton—[Hon. Members: "Cathcart".] I apologise; I mean the hon. Member for Cathcart, although "Cathcart" is too sacred a word in the Tory Party to apply to the hon. Gentleman. The term "press poodle" has too frequently been applied to both my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South and myself to cause us even a moment's trepidation. However, I do not want to press a Division on this amendment.

Mr. Buchan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clear up a mystery. How is it that Conservative Members have seen infringement upon infringement of all our freedoms and have sat silent, yet on the first occasion on which editors of the popular press intervene in order to get the right to publish the names of kids under 16 involved in crimes they immediately leap to their feet in defence of the freedom of the press barons? The hon. Gentleman asks why we call them press poodles. Had they said one word in defence of the other freedoms that are under attack in the Bill we might have had an atom of respect. As it is, there can be none.

Mr. Fraser: That is possibly the most irrelevant intervention in the debate so far. I might have had some respect for the hon. Gentleman had he at any time had the honesty to admit that in the Bill there are more additions to the liberty of the individual in Scotland than there are restrictions upon it. Had the hon. Gentleman had the courage to say that, I would have listened to what he said in his intervention.
There is something of a question mark over the amendments that have been introduced by the Government. However, I shall not cause a Division on them. I hope that in future there will be an opportunity to see whether they have worked, and whether it is possible to separate the identity of a witness from that of either the victim or the complainer.

Mr. Dewar: I suppose that if one did a narrow, pettifogging, numerical head-count through the Bill to the point made by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr Fraser) would appear to have a superficial validity, but it is not a matter of quantity; it is rather one of quality. The sad thing about the Bill is that the number of obnoxious clauses are few, but they are extremely damaging. While we have never denied that there are useful things in the Bill, we fear that they are very much outweighed by those that will damage essential liberties and the workings of the criminal justice system.
I agree with the hon. Member for South Angus on one point, which is the split that has existed in the law in relation to the reporting of the names of children under summary and solemn procedure. He at least has had the courage to say that he would have moved for consistency, but he would have done it in the wrong way by destroying the safeguards on summary procedure and bringing the law into line with what had been the situation in respect of solemn prosecutions.
I think that the Government have been correct in saying that that would be totally unacceptable, and that if we are going for consistency—and there is a strong argument for that—we should standardise on the powers contained in section 374 of the 1975 Act, which protects a juvenile who is the subject of a summary prosecution. That section makes it clear that there cannot be publication in those cases.
After all, that is also consistent with the children's panel situation, as set out in, I think, section 58 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act. What we were dealing in the solemn procedure cases was an anomalous fag-end, and the Government have been absolutely right to bring the whole matter into line.
I believe that there has been a good deal of hyprocrisy, bombast and something bordering on hysteria in the campaign that has been fought on this issue. There has been a suggestion—the phrase was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton)—that on this occasion the Government have caved in. I do not think that the Government have caved in although we are delighted if that impression was given. We have not a cave-in but a somewhat soggy sag.
The Under-Secretary of State tried to produce a cosmetic amendment to present to the press and to say to them "We are good boys really. We have done our job for you." In fact, he has not wanted to concede the principle that is worrying the editors. I have news for him. He has been found out. In its letter of 30 May the Scottish Daily Newspaper Society anticipated this amendment and said:
It is believed that the Government are prepared to modify clause 22 to provide that child witnesses not named in the charge may be identified subject to possible direction by the court.
It was right. The letter continued:
In the view of the Scottish Editors, this is not nearly sufficient.
So, when the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) rushes loyally to the defence of his Ministers and tries to misrepresent the position, he is totally wrong. The press will not be taken in, and it will recognise that this amendment constitutes only a minor change. I am grateful for that, but we should recognise that it does not give the press what it wants. We should be thankful for that small mercy.
Will the Under-Secretary of State clarify certain points? As I understand it, the new amendment makes it clear that a witness cannot be restricted, and has a right to publish until such time as the court makes an order to the effect that he cannot publish. Certain cases


were raised by the Scottish editors in their letter, which stated:
Not so long ago a gunman burst into a Dundee primary school classroom and threatened to shoot the teacher. The clause, as drafted, could preclude naming the school and picturing the children because some of them might be witnesses at the forthcoming trial.
Is it correct that that case would be covered by this amendment and that the editors would be free to print pictures of the school and to name it, despite the fact that the children might be witnesses at the forthcoming trial? There may be some interesting areas of contempt of court, but on the assumption that at that point no one had been arrested, I should not have thought that contempt would apply. But the editors felt that as this clause was originally drafted it would prevent that kind of reporting and that sort of picture appearing. Has that anxiety been laid to rest?
I believe that, on the whole, the line has been held by the Government, perhaps with a little embarrassed shuffling. I am grateful that it has been held, however reluctantly, at the end of the day. They are right. This protection should be extended. Protection is more important in this case than in cases covered by section 374 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, which are minor summary matters. We shall support the Government, even in the face of mutiny by their Back Benchers.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craighton (Mr. Millan) about the extraordinary procedure that is proposed whereby the procurator fiscal will bob up at any time and remind the judge about his duties and responsibilities under section 22 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980. That will be a laugh. I wonder what will happen if he forgets to do it. Will that be a ground for appeal? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State can tell me. In any event, I am grateful that we are still moving down the right road and, despite the somewhat embarrassed shuffles, we shall get almost where we should be.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) was showing distinct signs of schizophrenia in the welcome that he gave to the Government's approach to the clause. Nevertheless, I recognise what the hon.

Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) has just said, and I am grateful to him for that.
In answer to the specific question about the example of a gunman breaking into a school, I have not the slightest doubt that in these circumstances there is absolutely no reason why the press should not name the school or, indeed, give much other information as well.
If the hon. Member for Garscadden rereads clause 22 he will see that it merely refers to newspaper reports of proceedings in a court. Until the proceedings are in a court, clause 22 cannot be relevant. There may be other matters affected by the law of contempt, as the hon. Gentleman recognised, but the press need have no fear concerning its general ability to report in a very detailed way.
Even when the proceedings are taking place in court, the press can give very wide detailed descriptions of what is alleged and what has happened. The only thing the press cannot do is to identify the names of the children involved. The press can indicate the whole circumstances in which a crime took place, the way in which it was committed, and all the other matters of legitimate public interest. As I have already indicated, what the press cannot do—unless the judge directs otherwise—is to identify the child or children involved. That is the purpose of the clause.

Mr. Dewar: It would be helpful if the Under-Secretary were to circulate this information to editors. On the evidence of their letter, clearly they are under a lamentable misapprehension.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept that some of the newspaper editors—and some of those who have commented on the clause—have misunderstood what will still be possible and what, indeed, has been possible over the years in summary cases. I have no doubt that members of the press read the reports of our proceedings and will be in no further doubts as to the implications of the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 32, in page 23, line 25, after '(i)', insert
'where the person is concerned in the proceedings as a witness only and no one against whom the proceedings are taken is under the


age of 16 years, the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply unless the court so directs;
(ii)'.
No. 33, in page 23, line 28, after 'section', insert:
'(including such requirements as applied by a direction under paragraph (i) above'.
No. 34, in page 23, line 33, leave out 'requirements of this section' and insert 'said requirements'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Norman Hogg: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 23, line 42, leave out ' £ 500' and insert ' £ 5,000'.
In Committee, Opposition Members very strongly supported the clause, and we are a little concerned about the developments that we have just discussed. The main misgiving that we had was that the fine proposed for a breach was so inadequate. In Committee on 5 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), in a speech which strongly supported the generality of the clause, spoke very strongly in favour of the fine being increased. That is my view and it is the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It accounts for the fact that we have tabled the amendment that is now before the House.
The first and most important interest in the matter is that of the children. It is best put by Mrs. Eileen Griffiths, the press secretary of the Scottish Association of Children's Panels, in a letter to the Glasgow Herald of 3 June in which she said:
Is it not in the best interests of society to reform these youngsters, who hopefully differ from their adult counterparts in that some of them at least are still impressionable enough to be changed for the better? Attempts at reforming such children are likely to be doomed to failure once they have been publicly labelled and given a bad name.
That powerfully underlines the importance of the clause. We have been stressing in Committee and here this evening the importance of the clause. That is why we believe that the fine should be increased.
If the House accepts that the offence is serious, the fine proposed is inadequate. It is equal to a contempt of court. If the House accepts that view, it is surely hopelessly inadequate when we consider recent precedents for fines for contempt.
In January 1978 London Weekend Television was the defender in a case brought against it because it had broadcast photographs. It was fined £ 50,000 and its executives were each fined £ 11,000.
Nearer home, Radio Forth, reported in The Times on 22 December 1979, was fined £ 10,000 and its chief executive was fined £ 1,000 when one of four arrested persons
brought a petition and complaint before the High Court alleging that Radio Forth broadcasts were made after it was known that persons had been arrested.
I draw attention to those precedents because I believe that those fines were right. They reflected a proper decision by the court. If we are talking about protecting children and arguing that they should be given the opportunity to start again at an early stage in their lives, and if the press chooses to be irresponsible in that respect and acts in breach of clause 22, the fine must properly reflect the seriousness of the matter. We could do that by accepting the amendment and increasing the fine to £ 5,000.

Mr. Bill Walker: I intervene briefly because I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg), although there have been occasions on which we have managed to come reasonably together on some matters.
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that I support the intention behind the amendment. I have not been happy about the clause, for many reasons. I did not speak in the earlier debate on this clause, but I assure Opposition Members that I do not think that we have got it right even now. Therefore, I am concerned about it.
It is important to protect children. I do not believe that the present level of fine would necessarily deter. As Opposition Members know, I am a great one for deterrents. Therefore, I believe that the fine should deter.

Mr. Rifkind: I can answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Hogg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) straightforwardly and simply. They have asked that the fine be increased to £ 5,000. At the moment, the maximum fine for an


offence of this kind is £ 50. Therefore, the figure in the clause represents a tenfold increase in the maximum from £ 50 to £ 500.

Mr. Maxton: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall not give way. This is a small point. To suggest that we should increase the fine in one go from £ 50 to £ 5,000 takes it much too far. A tenfold increase at this stage is appropriate. There may be circumstances in future years to justify a further increase, but it is not appropriate at the moment.

Mr. Buchan: I do not think that the Under-Secretary of State has got the kernel of the argument. The kernel of the argument is the assumption that the press, in view of the representations made to us, intends to behave in a responsible fashion. Because we accept that the Daily Express, The Sun, and so on will behave in a responsible fashion, those who transgress should receive a much heavier penalty. The Tories were moved to weep and plead for the poor press barons, but they cannot argue with such conviction without accepting that they are liable to a greater penalty if they transgress. Recognising the new responsibility that has been shown in the pressures that have been brought to bear upon us to allow the press to print the names of people under 16 years of age involved in incest cases, by the same token, if the press should transgress, a £ 5,000 fine seems moderate. I am astonished at my own moderation in supporting the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 23

PEREMTORY CHALLENGE OF JURORS

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 24, line 8, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 38, in page 24, line 11, leave out 'three' and insert 'four'.

Mr. Ewing: The amendment deals with the number of peremptory challenges that

may be made. I do not criticise the selection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I observe that we tabled an amendment to delete clause 23. We would much prefer the number of peremptory challenges to remain at five. However, we have the choice of three or four. We do not believe that the savings will amount to anything. We do not believe that fewer jurors will be cited to attend jury trials. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and will agree that instead of reducing the number of peremptory challenges from five to three it will be sufficient, if the Government want to reduce the number, to take it from five to four.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has founded his case on economy. Does he agree that the principal objection to having five peremptory challenges is that it gives a number of defendants who are appearing together an opportunity to pack a jury? That has happened in the English courts. Does he accept that it is also happening in the courts of Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: I do not accept that it has happened in the courts of Scotland. I respect the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the English legal system, but, with great respect, the knowledge that he has of the Scottish legal system is fairly limited. Provision for five peremptory challenges has stood the test of over a century of Scots law. In our view, there is no reason why it should be changed. The choice for the House is between five and three challenges and not between four and three. That is because the Government have already decided to reduce the number of peremptory challenges, which are an important facet of Scots law.
For the reasons that I have stated we want to retain peremptory challenges and to retain them at the highest possible level—in this instance, four, if the Minister agrees to accept the amendment.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) has asked the Government to have a rethink. The Government have done so. The Government's original proposal was that there should be only one peremptory challenge. An amendment was tabled by two of my hon. Friends, as well as by the hon. Gentleman, which


proposed three challenges as an alternative. I accept that the hon. Gentleman's preference was that there should be no change. It seemed that the figure that was reached was acceptable to the Committee, which did not divide when the Question was put that there should be three peremptory challenges. The arguments that were advanced then are relevant now. The feeling has been expressed in a number of quarters that five challenges was excessive. Three challenges is a balanced compromise between those who hold different points of view. It would be unwise to disturb that compromise now.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 24

SECLUSION OF JURY AFTER RETIRAL

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 24, line 26, leave out from 'judge' to 'shall' in line 28 and insert—
'(i) in giving a direction, whether or not sought under paragraph (b) below; or (ii) in response to a request made under that paragraph)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 40.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendment will secure that the new provisions in clause 24 do not adversely affect the existing power of a judge to recall a jury shortly after it retires to give it a direction which he omitted to give it during his summing up. As drafted the reference in the subsection is to the jury seeking rather than receiving a direction. It is for clarification purposes that the amendment has been introduced.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 24, line 33, after 'to', insert 'receive or'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 26

ROUTINE EVIDENCE

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 26, line 8, at end insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of any summary criminal proceedings, a report purporting to

be signed by two authorised forensic scientists shall, subject to subsection (2) below, be sufficient evidence of any fact (or conclusion as to fact) contained in the report and of the authority of the signatories.
In the foregoing provisions of this subsection, "authorised" means authorised by the Secretary of State to make a report to which this subsection shall apply.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 42, 44, 45, 50 to 53 and 56.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendment, together with the amendments grouped with it, is designed to simplify the procedure in situations in which there is agreement between the prosecution and the defence on certain routine evidence. They particularly relate to the evidence of forensic scientists. Subsection 1 (A), which applies to summary cases only, provides that a report that has been signed by a forensic scientist shall, when agreeable to the defence, be sufficient evidence.

As regards solemn cases, the other subsection ensures that where there is agreement between the prosecution and the defence, the report need only be spoken to by one of the forensic scientists during the course of the trial. If the defence is concerned about the evidence in the forensic report and wishes to challenge it, or if it considers it an important part of the evidence, it will be able to indicate that. It will then be necessary for the present procedure to continue. Forensic scientists will not be so adversely affected by the requirements of court time. They are subject to substantial pressure, as there are only a few of them.

This is a constructive, and, we hope, uncontroversial way of ensuring that in non-controversial cases, routine matters—which often form the substance of reports—can be dealt with adequately, and with fairness to all parties. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 26, leave out line 9 and insert—
'(2) Subsections (1) and (1A) above shall not apply to a certificate, or as the case may be report, '.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 26, line 14, leave out 'date' and insert 'time'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 49 and 54.

Mr. Rifkind: Clause 26 provides the right for the accused to challenge certificated proof of routine evidence if he gives notice to the prosecution not later than six days before the trial. It gives discretion to the court to allow the accused to challenge such evidence at a later date. We feel that on balance the word "date" could be interpreted too restrictively, and therefore we have replaced it by the word "time". That ensures that the court has the fullest discretion to see that the interests of the accused are properly safeguarded. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 26, line 18, at end insert
'or as the case may be the fact, conclusion or authority mentioned in subsection (1A) above.'.
No. 45, in page 26, line 19, after 'certificate', insert
', or as the case may be report, '.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 26, line 19, after 'above', insert
', or of a conviction or extract conviction required by subsection (7) below '.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Government amendments Nos. 47, 57 and 58.

Mr. Rifkind: These are drafting amendments and have no policy implications. Accordingly, I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 47, in page 26, line 20, leave out 'this' and insert 'that'.
No. 49, in page 26, line 37, leave out 'date' and insert 'time'.
No. 50, in page 26, line 40, after 'autopsy', insert 'or forensic science'.
No. 51, in page 26, line 42, after 'pathologists', insert 'or forensic scientists'.
No. 52, in page 27, line 1, after 'pathologist', insert 'or forensic scientist'.
No. 53, in page 27, line 1, after 'fact', insert
'(or conclusion as to fact)'.

No. 54, in page 27, line 4, leave out 'date' and insert 'time'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, amendment No. 55, in page 27, line 5, leave out 'gives notice' and insert
'serves notice on the prosecutor'.
This is also a drafting amendment, and has no policy implications. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 27, line 6, after 'pathologist', insert 'or forensic scientist'.

No. 57, in page 27, line 9, leave out '(a)'.

No. 58, in page 27, line 19, leave out from 'application' to end of line 28.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Clause 30

ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND EVIDENCE IN REPLICATION

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 60, in page 30, line 31, leave out 'such' and insert 'the'.
This is a drafting amendment and does not have any policy implications. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41

RESTRICTION ON PASSING SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT OR DETENTION ON PERSON NOT LEGALLY REPRESENTED

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 35, line 30, leave out 'borstal training or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 121 to 127.

Mr. Rifkind: This is a formidable group of amendments. They are drafting amendments to take account of the fact that borstal training is to be abolished in Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: "Hear, Hear."] I am glad that the House appreciates that move. On that basis, I can safely recommend the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

DISQUALIFICATION AND ENDORSEMENT WHERE ORDERS FOR PROBATION OR FOR ABSOLUTE DISCHARGE ARE MADE

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 46, line 20, leave out from 'section' to '183' in line 21.
I am tempted to say that this is a drafting amendment with no policy implications. Unfortunately, I cannot say that. The amendment is important and deserves the attention of the House. We do not recognise the consistency in someone having an endorsement when an absolute discharge is recorded in the court. We suggest that the Solicitor-General for Scotland accepts that there is an inconsistency in clause 54. The provision represents a great injustice. The House should accept the amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It is competent in solemn proceedings to take such an action. The question is whether it should be taken in summary proceedings. The issue is simple. If the amendment is accepted a sheriff who wishes to discharge or put on probation, but to prevent a person from driving for a period of time, has a simple alternative. He can either not take that lenient view or take another action that will enable him to prevent the person from driving. That would not be proper.
In summary proceedings one is not allowed to do what one is allowed to do in solemn proceedings. It is a matter of principle. I cannot see the distinction. The suggestion is more likely to lead to more absolute discharges and more probation orders.

Mr. Dewar: An absolute discharge is not a conviction. Combined with the real penalty of disqualification or endorsement the clause will put the court off following the course that the Solicitor-General advocates. The court will admonish and endorse the road traffic penalty on the licence. The amendment is recommended by the Law Society and a number of other legal bodies. Could not the Solicitor-General throw at least a few crumbs?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Unfortunately, I forgot to bring my bread.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 58

AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION ORDER

Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move amendment No. 166, in page 48, line 4, after 'court', insert—
'and the nature and extent of the injury, loss or damage caused directly or indirectly by the acts which constituted the offence.'.
The clause states that in determining whether to make an order for compensation and the amount to be paid under such an order, the court shall take into consideration the person's means, so far as they are known. The amendment might be superfluous, but the Bill does not seem to state that the court shall take into consideration injuries that cause the making of an award. That should be a desirable objective. Presumably it is also desirable that such an award should not vary too much from that which one may obtain through civil proceedings.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). However, as he anticipated, it is unnecessary. The court can deal with a person by any other means, and will inevitably take into consideration the means of the person—in other words, the intelligence of the sentence of a compensation order.
It is intended to be a simple process. I hope that it will work. The court would in no circumstances be likely to apply a compensation order unless it was appropriate in all the circumstances, one of which of course is whether the person can fulfil it.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 69

LIABILITY OF VEHICLE OPERATOR AND HIS EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 52, line 8, leave out clause 69.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 66, in page 52, line 14, leave out from 'operator' to 'shall' in line 15.

Mr, Dewar: This is another issue that was well ploughed in Committee but that we left with the Minister in the hope that further thought might produce some useful changes. It concerns the recommendations of the so-called McElhone report.
The clause imposes penalties in situations in which an operator permits alcohol to be carried on his bus to and from a designated sports ground. We have no objection to the word "operator". We feel that there must be a sanction here. However, we are worried about "employee or agent" and the sanction that may fall on him. We are particularly worried about the situation of a bus driver.
In clause 70 there is a statutory defence. We tried hard to persuade the Minister that that statutory defence should merely be that alcohol had been carried on the vehicle without the consent or connivance of the driver. We did not succeed. There still remains in that special defence the additional phrase:
and that he did all he reasonably could to prevent such carriage".
I am not satisfied about the definition of that phrase. As it remains in the Bill, we are worried about the position of a bus driver and the sanction imposed on him under clause 69.
I know that it is a vexed question. I can see that the general argument that the Solicitor-General will advance is that it would be ludicrous to have a sanction on the operator and no sanction on the employee who is at the scene of the offence, driving the bus at the time at which alcohol appeared on it. However, given the unsatisfactory wide nature of clause 70 and the high standard,
that he did all he reasonably could to prevent such carriage",
we feel that there is a case for excluding the bus driver. The Government were good enough to say that they would consider the matter. What view have they reached?

Mr. Caravan: I am unhappy about this area of the Bill. The Government appear to be labouring under the mis-

apprehension that drink is the main cause of violence at football matches and sports grounds. In certain circumstances drink may be a contributory factor, but there are other factors in Scottish football, such as the bigotry and hatred encouraged among a certain element of supporters. We should also consider the primitive conditions that exist in many Scottish sports grounds. Some are more like public urinals than football stadiums that the nation could be proud of.
The Government should be ashamed of their decision to cancel the money that they promised for the work on Hampden Park. It is hypocritical for the Government to blame excessive drinking for most football violence—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Canavan: A few weeks ago the Secretary of State for Scotland blamed the post-Cup Final fiasco on excessive drinking. Of course, Tories know that their party gets money from the big brewer;;. The big brewing families, such as the Youngers and McEwans, have lined their pockets for years with money made from drink. There is a little hypocrisy behind this part of the Bill.
I am concerned about the possible effect of the clause on bus drivers. I have had representations from constituents including, for example, the Transport and General Workers Union branch at Alexander's bus garage, in Balfron. I sent the letter on to the Secretary of State and told him that I fully supported the views of the union branch. I am still awaiting a reply. Perhaps I may be given it at the end of the debate.
The gist of the letter was that the drivers were concerned that they could be held liable if drink were found on their bus. I do not see why a driver should be held responsible. Do we expect a bus driver to search every football supporter before he or she gets on the bus? Are we suggesting that a driver should be put in the invidious position


of having to throw people off the bus after it has started its journey?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland should address himself to those points. Drivers have a difficult enough job as it is. They are often threatened by passengers, and violence has been used against them. We should be giving drivers more protection instead of putting more responsibilities on their shoulders.
Under the Bill a bus driver could find himself in court on a criminal charge because a number of supporters—or even

only one supporter—took alcohol on to his bus. I think that the TGWU branch in my constituency reflects a wide body of opinion among bus drivers and I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will consider the amendment seriously.
I prefer amendment No. 65, which would omit the whole of clause 69, which relates to the liability of a vehicle operator and his employees and agents. If we cannot get the clause removed, amendment No. 66 will be the second-best option.

Mr. Frank McElhone (Glasgow, Queens Park): I shall not rehearse the arguments that I raised on Second Reading, when I expressed concern about the position of the drivers. Noble Lords in the other place take some credit for the fact that they looked seriously at the matter. I said that the clause had to be strengthened. I do not support fully the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), but I consider that the Government are under an obligation to examine the invidious position in which a driver can be placed in difficult circumstances when he has to pick up members of a supporters club from a public house in Glasgow or elsewhere.
This situation would not have arisen, or would not be as common, if the Government had accepted the recommendation in the McElhone report and the call that I made on Second Reading for a pilot project allowing bars within football grounds. Unfortunately, the debate in Committee took place just after the disgraceful scenes at the Rangers-Celtic Cup Final. That emotive and dangerous situation evidently coloured the thinking of Ministers.
I am extremely disappointed that the Government selected the penal parts of the McElhone report but did not consider the many thousands of good fans who go to football matches almost every week and who would like, if I may use a Presbyterian term, a refreshment. In discussions on the Bill yesterday much was heard about parity between homosexuals in Scotland and those in England. There should also be parity with England in so far as fans at West Ham and other grounds can go to the back of the terrace and obtain a cardboard or plastic cup of beer or lager. This argument should have been supported by Ministers before the last stage of the Bill came before the House.
I reject the Government's proposal to use parts of the McElhone report but not to allow fans to indulge in a carton of beer. There should be a pilot project. I shall vote against the Government on the ground that they have shown no consideration for the decent fans.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This is an important point, and I have

looked at it seriously. It raises the whole question of responsibility and vicarious responsibility which, as with all licensing matters, concerns everyone. The question whether the publican, the licensee or the barmaid should bear responsibility is a delicate matter of judgment. It has always caused difficulty in the law. I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) that I have again looked carefully at the matter. It is important to remember that clause 70 introduces a special defence. Under existing law, the driver would be liable for the carriage of alcohol on the coach, depending on the quantity. He would have none of these defences. That is something to which objection has never been taken.
I do not for one moment underestimate the difficulty in which a driver might find himself. We all want to try to solve the connection between alcohol and football hooliganism. I accept what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) said. I would like to change tonight—although one would not do it by legislation—to a humane situation in which people could have a drink at a football ground and enjoy the game. If I thought that that was a viable alternative to the present situation I would introduce it tomorrow, but I am afraid that I take the view that is contained in one of the recommendations of the report of the hon. Member for Queen's Park. He says, in recommendation No. 8:
That in the event of our recommendations about the control of alcohol taking effect and bringing about a significant reduction in crowd violence at football matches, consideration should be given by the clubs … to the possibility of introducing as an experiment, facilities within selected grounds for the sale of beer … 
in other words, once this legislation has worked. That is what the recommendation says, and I accept the sincerity of it.

Mr. McElhone: May I emphasise the point once again? In discussions with the Under-Secretary who put the Bill through Committee I said time and time again that of course we had to wait for a certain period. All that I was asking for was an experiment. I believe that the Government should act on that.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We fully support the hon. Member's recommendation. Let me remind the House once again of the terms of that recommendation:
That in the event of our recommendations about the control of alcohol taking effect and bringing about a significant reduction in crowd violence at football matches, consideration should be given … to the possibility of introducing, as an experiment … 
We are nowhere near that stage. There are five conditions that the hon. Member wisely included in his report, and I believe that we must be very cautious.

Mr. Maxton: The Solicitor-General for Scotland said that he wished we could have a humane way of dealing with this problem. Does he not agree that one such humane way is to ensure that the major football ground in Scotland is adequate, and is properly equipped to deal with spectators? Why did the Government withdraw the money?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I ignore that.
We have established in the Bill defences for the driver, and it is important that he should not shirk all his responsibilities. I believe that we have struck an equitable balance. The question will also be subject to the equitable discretion of the procurators fiscal, under the Lord Advocate, whether in the circumstances it was reasonable for the driver to take action. There is no suggestion that if the driver suddenly discovers, half-way along a motorway that everyone in the bus has produced beer from nowhere, he is immediately guilty of an offence. He can take steps thereafter that are consistent with his duty.

Mr. Canavan: What should a bus driver do in those circumstances?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I would advise the bus driver that in such circumstances, when he knows that a criminal offence has been committed, he should, at the next opportunity, pull the bus into a place where he can report the fact to a police officer. He should drive the bus no further.

Mr. Buchan: I wish to say a few words, since the amendment was raised on my initiative and the correspondence that has taken place has been with me. I am sorry if I was dilatory in rising.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) may rest assured that the union has looked closely at the matter. Discussions took place before, during and after the Committee stage. I am concerned, as are other hon. Members, about this general proposition. I do not think that banning the carrying of alcohol while travelling to and from a football ground will be an easy task to accomplish. I would not wish to be the first to try to implement that provision, and I hope that the Government know what they are doing in this context.
I am concerned with the responsibility not of the vehicle operator but of the driver. I saw, and still see, that the driver is in an extremely difficult position. We all know the kind of ambience that can exist in a bus and we all know how difficult it is for a bus driver to check. Does the driver have sufficient defence if a difficult situation arises?

I tabled an amendment in Committee and I have since had correspondence with the Under-Secretary for which I am grateful. The Government have fallen over backwards to try to protect the bus driver, having first taken the view that they must include clauses 69 and 70. That would have been the argument. With this amendment I need not be concerned with those clauses. I am concerned with the position of the driver.

Under clause 69 it is still the case that the onus of proof is very much on the side of the prosecution, as indeed it will remain in all cases until the Bill becomes law. Therefore, the driver can legitimately rest assured that the Crown must prove that he had not taken sufficient measures to prevent an offence. There is a second defence under clause 70, where the driver can say that the offence was not committed with his consent or his connivance.

Protection is given, but I am anxious, and I still wish, despite the assurances to remove the wording relating to the driver. I am not concerned with the licence holder or the operator. For those reasons, I feel that I must stand by amendment No. 66.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 71

POSSESSION OF CONTAINER AT SPORTING EVENT

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 52, line 38, leave out 'use' and insert 'purpose'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 68.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are purely minor drafting amendments, proposing a seven-letter word for a three-letter word.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 52, line 40, leave out 'use' and insert 'purpose'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 78

GRANTS IN RESPECT OF HOSTEL ACCOMMODATION FOR PERSONS UNDER SUPERVISION

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 55, line 28, leave out 'providing residential' and insert—

'(a) providing; or
(b) contributing by way of grant under section 10 (3) of this Act to the provision by a voluntary organisation of, residential'.
This amendment enables local authorities to pass on to voluntary organisations


The Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77) Section 24 (1) (a) in so far as it relates to entry in breach of a deportation order, section 24 (1) (b) and section 26 (1) (f) in so far as it relates to a requirement of regulations (various offences concerning persons entering, or remaining in, the United Kingdom).
An officer authorised to do so by the Secretary of State.
In relation to a person identified in the certificate—




(a) the date, place or means of his arrival in, or any removal of him from, the United Kingdom;




(b) any limitation on, or condition attached to, any leave for him to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;




(c) the date and method of service of any notice of, or of variation of conditions attached to, such leave.'


Under clause 26 a certificate may be accepted in evidence for offences under enactments specified in schedule 1. The purpose of the amendment is to extend this provision to certain routine matters required under the Immigration Act 1971. This would provide that in certain mat-

any grants that they receive under the clause. I think that will commend itself to both sides of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 82

SHORT TITLE,COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 132, in page 56, line 30, at end insert
'section (execution in different parts of the United Kingdom of warrants for imprisonment for non-payment of fine); '.
No. 171, in page 56, line 33, leave out 'paragraph 8' and insert
'paragraphs 2, so far as relating to section 22, and 8 to 10'.
No. 133, in page 56, line 37, after '22', insert
'section (execution in different parts of the United Kingdom of warrants for imprisonment for non-payment of fine), '.
No. 134, in page 56, line 38, after 'section', insert
'paragraphs 2, so far as relating to section 22, and 8 to 10 of Schedule 6'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Schedule 1

CERTIFICATES AS TO PROOF OF CERTAIN ROUTINE MATTERS

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in page 57, line 27 [Schedule 1], at end insert—
ters where it was agreeable both to the prosecution and the defence it would be possible for these matters to be dealt with by a certificate.
The procedure proposed in the amendment is in all important aspects the same as that presently carried out in England


and Wales. That has led to no criticism on this aspect of the law.

Mr. Buchan: We cannot allow this amendment to pass without comment. This is a routine type of evidence, which is acceptable when in the hands of those who know what they are doing, but for those who are covered by the social security clauses, to which we have tabled an amendment, and particularly those covered by the Immigration Act, it is far too dangerous a procedure. This provision should not be introduced here. The normal procedure for bringing evidence in immigration cases—the normal paraphernalia of evidence of identification and everything else—should be used. This method alone is not good enough.

Mr. Rifkind: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that this procedure applies only when it is acceptable to the defence. If the defence wishes evidence to be brought in the normal way it has that right up to the moment of trial. This procedure has existed for some time elsewhere in the United Kingdom. There has been no evidence to suggest that this aspect of immigration law is controversial in England and Wales. Many aspects of immigration law are, of course, controversial, but this provision has caused no concern to the bodies and individuals most affected by it.

Mr. Buchan: With respect to the Under-Secretary—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak on the amendment.

Mr. Buchan: May I then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, put the following extensive question? I accept that this provision may be used only if the defence agrees. But the defence may be a solicitor instructed by an immigrant, or the immigrant himself. In either case I am not sure that immigrants who have to relate to a certificate giving
the date, place or means of his arrival in, or any removal of him from, the United Kingdom; … any limitation
in relation to his conditions, and so forth, will have the capacity to do that either personally or to instruct a solicitor to do it.
I am not reassured by the fact that no other bodies have objected. One hon. Member has objected, and that is sufficient. I ask the Under-Secretary to think again. We are objecting to it on the basis of the social security provisions. Often the people most in need of support are those covered by the provisions of the social security laws. That applies even more in this case. We objected to the speed at which this matter was dealt with in Committee. I am surprised to see it brought back here. If it is not to be withdrawn I shall certainly oppose it.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman genuinely misunderstands the amendment. It does not have the implications that he indicated. If this provision had created the difficulties that the hon. Gentleman envisaged it would have led to representations elsewhere in the United Kingdom from all the immigrant bodies who would have been concerned about the application of the procedure. They are concerned about many aspects of our immigration procedure and have made representations in other areas. I am not aware of any objections by immigrant bodies or anyone else about the way in which the system has worked in England and Wales for a considerable time.
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern. An earlier amendment approved by the House today makes it abundantly clear that even if some days before the trial an immigrant does not appreciate the significance of what is proposed, and is represented by a lawyer at the last moment, there is provision for a lawyer to apply on his behalf, up to the beginning of the trial, for the provision to be dispensed with and for the witnesses to be required to be present in court to speak to the evidence. The interests of an accused person are entirely safeguarded. Only when he or his legal representative—and legal representatives are there to advise him—feel that it is safe to allow the procedure to be applied will it be applied.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's legitimate concern, but on the basis of my remarks I ask him to consider the experience of similar procedure elsewhere in Britain and accept that as far as I am aware it has not led to any concern on the part of immigrant bodies. They recognise that in a case in which it is


considered necessary for the witnesses to be personally present, they are present. They are entitled to expect that safeguard, and the clause guarantees it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 57, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 58.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan) said, social security matters are very sensitive. The assurance given by the Minister that if the defence decides not to accept the serving of a certificate it would not be served is not sufficient protection in the case of sensitive social security matters. For that reason, we ask the Government seriously to consider deleting the Social Security Act 1975, the Child Benefit Act 1975 and the Supplementary Benefits Act 1975 from Schedule 1.

Mr. Dewar: I rise to support the amendment. I have had no experience of immigration cases, but I have considerable experience of social security cases. Very often the allegedly formal and routine matters dealt with under the procedures are the kernel of the prosecution because they are the essential things that must be proved. It is not simply a matter of clearing away peripheral formalities. We are talking about the proving of payments that are the essence of the alleged offence.
It would be dangerous to put them on that basis. I do not believe that the right to challenge them will be picked up often. In many social security prosecutions there is no legal representation. It is reasonable to expect accused persons to realise the significance of the procedure. They will not make the proper objection and, to put it bluntly, they will be done—even though they may have a good defence. It is a cause for some concern, and I hope that the Minister will recognise that.

Mr. Rifkind: I recall that the issue was raised in Committee, when hon. Members expressed their concern. As a consequence, we considered closely whether the argument put forward justified the exclusion of those aspects from the clause. There is the safeguard that the provisions can apply only if the defence do not object. The hon. Member

for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) made the perfectly fair point that a person involved in a social security allegation may not be legally represented, and therefore may not know six days before the trial whether he wishes to object.
We tried specifically to respond to that case in an earlier Government amendment by making it clear that, up to the beginning of the trial, if an objection were made to the certification procedure the court had to ensure that the witnesses attended. The hon. Gentleman indicated that in a case where a person was not legally represented it should be necessary to prove those matters. In the vast majority of cases the social security officers appear in court, give exactly the same evidence as is in the certificates, sit down, and are not cross-examined.

If the person is represented, by definition it is possible to anticipate points and the objection can be made. If we are talking about the position in which a person is not represented, the point is that in 99 per cent. of such cases it does not make any difference whether the person is formally in court. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garscadden indicates that he is concerned about the sufficiency of evidence, but the evidence that is given is exactly the evidence that is in the certificate, and it is rarely cross-examined.

We have the tremendous administrative inconvenience of large numbers of people having to come to court arid give formal evidence that is not cross-examined or disputed. In the vast majority of cases, rather than putting a lot of people to unnecessary inconvenience in non-controversial areas it should be sensible, if the defence has not objected, to allow the certification procedure to be used.

That is not unreasonable. It is a sensible balance between the legitimate interests of the accused to have the case proved—the case will still require to be proved—and the interests of trying to reduce to a minimum the inconvenience caused to witnesses whose evidence is not controversial and who often have to wait many hours before giving their evidence, who give it in about 30 seconds, and who are not cross-examined.

It is on that basis that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel able not to press the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule 2

SOLEMN APPEALS

Amendments made:
No. 78, in page 59, line 36, leave out 'an appellant' and insert 'a person'.
No. 79, in page 60, line 7, leave out 'appellant' and insert 'convicted person'.
No. 82, in page 61, line 20, leave out from 'in' to 'subsection' in line 25.
No. 83, in page 61, line 27, at end insert
'; and
(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above, 'appellant' includes not only a person who has lodged a note of appeal but also one who has lodged an intimation of intention to appeal.".'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 80, in page 60, line 41, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 81, in page 60, line 43, leave out from 'specify' to end of line 44.
No. 110, in schedule 3, page 74, line 44, leave out from 'period' to end of line 45.

Mr. Dewar: This matter refers to the report from the trial judge, which is usually obtained when an appeal is marked.
In schedule 2, paragraph 8, as the Minister will notice, the word "may" appears. The wording is:
Where the judge's report is not furnished as mentioned in subsection (1) above, the High Court may call for such report".
I should have thought it was essential for the High Court to call for such report. The amendment is designed to make it mandatory and to ensure that a report is available.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman's amendment seeks to make mandatory the requirement for a report. Indeed, in virtually every case a report will be called for. The only—but substantial—reason why a mandatory requirement is not felt to be appropriate here is that the judge in question may have died.

Mr. Buchan: How do we know?

Mr. Rifkind: If the amendment were introduced, the effect of it, if the judge had died, would be that the appellant would have no right to appeal because the report would not have been provided. The appellant would be put in an indelicate and unacceptable position.

Mr. Dewar: I am convinced. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 62, line 38,
after 'may', insert,' subject to subsection (4) below.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 87 and 89.

Mr. Rifkind: The purpose of the amendment is to include in the new solemn appeal procedure the existing power of the High Court to set aside the verdict of the trial court and substitute a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity. The court would also quash any sentence and order that the accused be detained in a State hospital.
The provision was unintentionally omitted from the schedule and the amendment is designed to deal with that anomaly. I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 62, line 46, leave out from 'court' to end of line 3 in page 63.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take amendment No. 90, in page 63, line 24, leave out paragraph 19.

Mr. Millan: This amendment deals with the question of new prosecutions and new trials in cases of solemn procedure. The Minister knows that in principle, in appropriate cases, I am not against the idea of new prosecutions and new trials. The changes that we are


making in this area are extremely desirable. The question has been raised before whether, in solemn procedure, it is possible to get a fair, unprejudiced trial when there has already been a prosecution, and perhaps a good deal of publicity, which will have been available to the members of the new jury.
I raised this matter on Second Reading and the Secretary of State then said that the previous publicity might be favourable rather than prejudicial to the accused. With due respect, may I say that that is not the point. I do not wish the jury to come to the new trial in any way trammelled by prejudice, either in favour of or against the accused. I agree that it would be particularly undesirable that the jury should be prejudiced in any way against the accused. I agree that it would be particularly undesirable that the jury should come to a trial with any kind of prejudice. Therefore, although we accept the idea of new prosecutions and new trials with summary procedure, where we are dealing with a professional judge who can set aside any knowledge of the case because of previous publicity, we are not happy about new prosecutions and new trials in solemn cases. This amendment and the associated amendment would prevent that.
The Minister is familiar with the arguments, and I need not elaborate on them. Nothing that has been said so far in the debate has persuaded us that this is a good provision.

Mr. Rifkind: I concede that this is a difficult area. The Thomson committee registered the fact that when we enter the realms of retrial we have to be careful to get the balance right. The problem that the committee faced was that at present the courts interpret their ability to quash a conviction because of strict new evidence, and they have to be satisfied, in effect, that if the new evidence had been available to the jury it would not have convicted—not that it might not have convicted, or that there was an area of doubt, but that it would not have convicted.
The difficulty that the Thomson committee recognised was that if there were not an opportunity for retrial the appeal court, when deciding whether to quash a conviction, could not know anything other than the formal evidence that was before

the court in the first instance. It would not be able to judge the demeanour of a witness, or consider the reliability of a witness, or whether his evidence was trustworthy—the sort of questions that are important to a jury. Therefore, it was felt appropriate by the Thomson committee—the Government share the view—that, on balance, in order to ensure the widest possible discretion to an appeal court and to ensure that the interests of an accused were not subject to this rigid test when new evidence was available, it was right that the option of a retrial should be available to the appeal courts. If, in special circumstances, they want to quash a conviction because it is a marginal case, they will be more likely to do so if the prosecutor has an option of bringing a retrial, if the court so decides. It is for those reasons that the provision is inserted in the Bill.
I accept the concern of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) about the implications. It is a difficult balance to achieve, but I hope that he will equally accept that the present interpretation that is required is not acceptable. It is necessary to make some change to ensure that new evidence leads to the appeal court being able, without restraint, to use that as a factor in determining how to deal with the appeal. On that basis, we felt that this was the proper way in which to proceed.

Mr. Millan: I shall not press the amendment. I accept nearly everything said by the Minister. Having some experience, as a former Secretary of State for Scotland, of people appealing to me to recommend the exercise of the prerogative, and so on, I accept that the present system is not satisfactory and that there may be cases in which a new trial would be a satisfactory way of dealing with new evidence. I do not object to this proposal in any violent way. We shall have to see how it works out.
I take seriously the idea that a jury may come to a new trial not innocent of the facts and arguments but with preconceived notions about the case. Therefore, we may want to reconsider this matter on some other occasion. We shall have to see how the courts use these new procedures. However, we should approach them with a good deal of care. I am sure that the courts will do the same.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 63, line 14, after 'may', insert,
', subject to subsection (4) below, '.

No. 89, in page 63, line 23, after 'therefor.', insert—
'(4) In relation to any appeal under section 228 (1) of this Act, the High Court shall, where it appears to it that the appellant committed the act charged against him but that he was insane when he did so, dispose of the appeal by—

(a) setting aside the verdict of the trial court and substituting therefore a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity; and
(b) quashing any sentence imposed on the appellant as respects the indictment and ordering that he be detained in a state hospital or such other hospital as for special reasons the court may specify.
(5) The provisions of subsection (4) of section 174 of this Act shall apply to an order under subsection (4) (b) above as they apply to an order under that section.'.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 91, in page 64, line 20, leave out from '(2)' to end of line 24 and insert—
'for the words "ten days", "a note of appeal or of application for leave to appeal" and "the determination thereof" there shall be substituted, respectively, the words "two weeks", "an intimation of intention to appeal (or in the case of an appeal under section 228 (1) (b) of this Act a note of appeal)" and "such appeal, if it is proceeded with, is determined".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 92 to 103 and Government amendment No. 130.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These are minor drafting amendments which seek to ensure that the various sections that deal with disqualification, forfeiture, extract convictions, custody of trial documents and the like will be commenced in different ways. I commend them to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 64, line 33, leave out from ' convictions)' to end of line 38 and insert
'for the words "ten days", "a note of appeal or of application for leave to appeal", and "the determination thereof" there shall be substituted, respectively, the words "two

weeks", "an intimation of intention to appeal (or in the case of an appeal under section 228 (1) (b) of this Act a note of appeal)" and "such appeal, if it is proceeded with, is determined'.'.

No. 93, in page 65, line 6, after 'leave', insert 'to appeal'.

No. 94, in page 65, line 7, leave out '"; and' and insert
'to appeal (or in the case of an appeal under section 228 (1) (b) of this Act a note of appeal"; '.

No. 95, in page 65, line 9, after 'leave' insert
'to appeal has been lodged'.

No. 96, in page 65, line 9, leave out '"an intimation of intention"; ' and insert
'"there has been such lodgement"; and
(v) for the words "determination thereof" there shall be substituted the words "appeal, if it is proceeded with, is determined".'.

No. 97, in page 65, line 11, after 'words "', insert
'an appellant or applicant who has lodged'.

No. 98, in page 65, line 12, after 'leave', insert 'to appeal'.

No. 99, in page 65, line 13, leave out 'an intimation of intention' and insert
'a person who has lodged an intimation of intention to appeal (or in the case of an appeal under section 228 (1) (b) of this Act a note of appeal)'.

No. 100, in page 65, line 16, after 'leave ', insert ' to appeal'.

No. 101, in page 65, line 17, after 'intention', insert:
'to appeal (or, in the case of an appeal under section 228 (1) (b) of this Act, note of appeal.'.

No. 102, in page 65, line 17, leave out 'and'.

No. 103, in page 65, line 19, at end insert:
'; and
(iii) at the end there shall be added the words "; and they shall be so dealt with if, there having been such intimation, the appeal is not proceeded with.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 3

SUMMARY APPEALS

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 66, line 35, leave out 'and 453D' and insert '453D and 453E'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 105, 108, 109, 112, 113 and 114.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We have already given the High Court the power, in solemn appeals, to substitute a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity. In such a case the High Court would quash any sentence imposed and order that the appellant be detained in a State hospital. For some reason, that is not entirely clear to me this has not been available in summary cases. The amendment ensures that it now is.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 105, in page 66, line 44, leave out '453D' and insert '453E '.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 106, in page 68, leave out line 44 and insert—
'(2B) Where a party neither attends nor secures that he is represented'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 107.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: These amendments ensure that hearings on adjustments in the stated case procedure can go ahead whether the appellant is present or not. That will prevent a delay in his appeal. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 107, in page 68, leave out line 46 and insert 'shall nevertheless proceed'.

No. 108, in page 71, line 29, after 'may', insert

', subject to section 453D (1) of this Act, '.

No. 109, in page 71, line 44, after 'shall' insert

', subject to section 453D (1) of this Act, '.— [Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 111, in page 75, line 6, leave out from 'lodged' to 'intimated' and insert—
'(a) in a case where the note of appeal has not yet been sent under subsection (4) (a) above to the Clerk of Justiciary, with the clerk of court;

(b) in any other case, with the Clerk of Justiciary,
and'.
The amendment enables a person to abandon an appeal before the matter has been lodged with the Clerk of Justiciary. It is introduced purely for convenience, and I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 112, in page 75, line 14, after second 'may', insert
', subject to section 453D (1) of this Act, '.

No. 113, in page 75, line 51, at end insert—

' Disposal of appeal where appellant insane

453D.—(1) In relation to any appeal under section 442 (1) (a) of this Act, the High Court shall, where it appears to it that the appellant committed the act charged against him but that he was insane when he did so, dispose of the appeal by—

(a) setting aside the verdict of the inferior court and substituting therefor a verdict of acquittal on the ground of insanity; and
(b) quashing any sentence imposed on the appellant as respects the complaint and ordering that he be detained in a state hospital or such other hospital as for special reasons the court may specify.

(2) The provisions of subsection (4) of section 174 of this Act shall apply to an order under subsection (1) (b) above as they apply to an order under that section.'.

No. 114, in page 76, line 1, leave out '453D' and insert '453E'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 4

ABOLITION OF MANDATORY FIRST DIET

Amendments made: No. 115, in page 78, line 13, after 'but', insert 'any'.

No. 116, in page 79, line 6, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
'(41 Where there is a hearing under this section the accused (or all the accused as the case may be) shall attend it:
Provided that if the court so permits the hearing may proceed notwithstanding his (or their) absence.'.—[Mr. Rifkind.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 80, line 27, after '104', insert '—(1)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 118.

Mr. Rifkind: The amendments amend section 104 of the 1975 Act to provide that when a sheriff remits a case for


sentence to the High Court a note of his reasons for the remit shall be sent to the defence and the Crown Agent. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will be interested to know that it was his partner, Mr. Ross Harper, who put the proposal to the Government. I am not quite certain why he did not put it to the hon. Gentleman. Nevertheless, the Government were happy to consider it entirely on its merits. I am happy to commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 167, in page 80, line 42, at end insert
'but nothing in this section shall restrict the right of a Sheriff to dispose of one or more accused in the sheriff court if he feels this to be appropriate while remitting a co-accused on the same indictment for sentence in the High Court in terms of this section.'.
After that display of breadth of mind by the Under-Secretary of State I cannot resist the temptation to move the amendment. This is positively the last speech that I shall make on the Bill. That will appeal to my colleagues who were members of the Committee. It is a minor matter, but of some importance.
The present law of Scotland is that where a sheriff considers that a man deserves a sentence that is beyond his powers—in other words, a sentence longer than two years—he must remit him to the High Court for the longer length of imprisonment to be considered. Unfortunately, if there is more than one accused the wish to remit one means that they all have to be remitted.
I accept that there is a system whereby a note is sent by the initial trial judge to the High Court, which is some measure of safeguard. It would be infinitely better if the sheriff could dispose of those of the accused whom he thought he could suitably dispose of and remit to the High Court only those whom he thought deserved sentences beyond his powers. That would ensure that in as many cases as possible the trial judge would hear the evidence and make a disposal. It seems a proper reform, and one that I hope will be achieved in this modest amendment. I trust that even at the eleventh hour and fifty-ninth minute the Under-Secretary of State will consider the matter kindly.

Mr. Rifkind: This is a matter that we discussed in Committee. I appreciate the reasons of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for introducing the amendment. He will recollect that when we previously debated the matter I quoted the words of the Lord Justice Clerk, Lord Wheatley, who indicated with some force that there was something undesirable when two co-accused were dealt with by the lower court if it were felt appropriate to remit one of them to the High Court for sentence. He considered it right that whoever was imposing the sentences should have before him all those who had been found guilty.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to a general problem. If a person who might otherwise have received a very light sentence—within the maximum permitted by the sheriff court—is sent to the High Court, there is a danger that he will receive a heavier sentence. There is a protection against that. The sheriff must send a report to the High Court, stating the reasons for the remit. If the sheriff were prepared to give a low and modest sentence to one of the co-accused he would indicate that in the report. That is a proper safeguard.

Mr. Dewar: I accept that. However, if the accused is committed to the High Court as a fellow passenger, he may still suffer. At a subsequent stage he may get into trouble, and a High Court disposal will appear on his list of convictions. I have listened to many orators, and I know that a sheriff is likely to say "I sentence you to such-and-such. I do this because of your very bad record. I see, indeed, that you have been sentenced in the High Court". That is an unfortunate by-product of the system.

Mr. Rifkind: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point. One must bear in mind that a list of previous convictions will refer not only to the previous convictions and the courts where the accused appeared but to the sentence that he received. In many cases a person who has appeared in the High Court is fined, or receives a two or three-month prison sentence. Indeed, he may receive an absolute discharge. When, subsequently, the defence draws the court's attention to the sentence that was imposed, the court will appreciate that it was a minor matter even though it was dealt with by the High Court.
Often, a person charged with a serious offence is convicted only of a minor offence in the High Court. Although the conviction will show that he appeared in the High Court, a subsequent court will recognise that the offence was trivial. Even in those circumstances the interests of the accused are properly safeguarded. For the good reasons that the Lord Justice Clerk referred to, it is appropriate that whoever sentences should be able to sentence all the convicted at the same time.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 80, line 42 at end insert—
'(2) When the Clerk of Justiciary receives the record copy of the indictment he shall send a copy of the note of reasons to the convicted person or his solicitor and to the Crown Agent.
(3) Subject to subsection (2) above, the note of reasons shall be available only to the High Court and the parties.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 6

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 135, in page 84, line 37, at end insert—
'9. In the application of section 65 of this Act to proceedings instituted before the coming into force of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, for the reference to section 91 of that Act in subsection (1) of the said section 65 there shall be substituted a reference to section 72B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.
10. In the application of section 38A of the Criminal Law Act 1977 to the execution of extract convictions and warrants before the coming into force of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the reference to section 150 (3) of the said Act of 1980 in the said section 38A there shall be substituted a reference to section 102 (4) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 7

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDEMENTS

Amendments made: No. 121, in page 86, leave out lines 14 to 21 and insert—
'(i) for the words "any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the words "England and Wales";
(ii) for the words "that part of the United Kingdom" there shall be substituted the words "England and Wales"; and
(iii) the provisio shall cease to have effect.'.

No. 122, in page 86, line 22 leave out '(5)' and insert '(5A)'.

No. 123, in page 86, line 23, leave out '(5A)' and insert '(5B)'.

No. 124, in page 86, line 33, leave out—

'(i) in the case of a person transferred from England and Wales, '.

No. 125, in page 86, leave out lines 37 to 39.

No. 126, in page 86, line 49, at end insert—
'7A. In section 29 (1) (removal for judicial purposes) after the words "young offenders centre" there shall be inserted the words ", young offenders institution".
7B. In section 30 (3) (prisoners unlawfully at large) after the words "young offenders centre" there shall be inserted the words "young offenders institution".'

No. 127, in page 87, line 19, leave out from 'institution",' to end of line 20 and insert 'for the words
any part of the United Kingdom other than Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the words "England and Wales"; '.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in page 90, line 4, at end insert—
'23A. At the end of section 28 (admission or refusal of bail after commital), there shall be added the following subsection—
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of section 26 of this Act and the foregoing provisions of this section apply whether or not the person is in custody at such time as he appears for the disposal of his application.".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Government amendment No. 129.

Mr. Rifkind: I am pleased to inform the House that these are the final amendments. They make clear that bail may be granted to an accused who appears in court on an undertaking, beside those already in custody. It deals with an anomaly in the Bill, and I commend it to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 129, in page 93, line 32, at end insert—
'47A. At the end of section 298 (all offences to be bailable), there shall be added the following subsection—
(3) For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing provisions of this section apply whether or not the person is in custody at such time as he appears for the disposal of his application.".'.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Schedule 8

REPEALS

Amendments made:

No. 130, in page 100, leave out lines 17 to 20.—[Lord James Douglas-Hamilton.]

Division No. 427]
AYES
[10.55 pm


Alison, Michael
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Ancram, Michael
Hampson, Dr Keith
Parris, Matthew


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Hannam, John
Pollock, Alexander


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Hawkins, Paul
Rathbone, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hawksley, Warren
Renton, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Heddle, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Henderson, Barry
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hicks, Robert
Rifkind, Malcolm


Best, Keith
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Biggs-Davison, John
Hooson, Tom
Robinson, Peter (Befast East)


Blackburn, John
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Rossi, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rost, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Scott, Nicholas


Braine, Sir Bernard
Kershaw, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Bright, Graham
Knight, Mrs Jill
Skeet, T. H. H.


Brinton, Tim
Lang, Ian
Speller, Tony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lawrence, Ivan
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Brotherton, Michael
Lawson, Nigel
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sproat, lain


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stainton, Keith


Bulmer, Esmond
Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Macfarlane, Neil
Stanley, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
MacGregor, John
Stevens, Martin


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
MacKay, John (Argyll)
Stewart, Allan (East Renfrewshire)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Strading Thomas, J.


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Major, John
Tebbit, Norman


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Marlow, Tony
Thompson, Donald


Cockeram, Eric
Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Colvin, Michael
Mather, Carol
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Cope, John
Maude, Rt Hon Angus
Viggers, Peter


Corrie, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wakeham, John


Cranborne, Viscount
Mellor, David
Waldegrave, Hon William


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Dykes, Hugh
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Ward, John


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Watson, John


Fairgrieve, Russell
Miscampbell, Norman
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)


Farr, John
Moate, Roger
Wheeler, John


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Wickenden, Keith


Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Wilkinson, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Mudd, David
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Needham, Richard
Younger, Rt Hon George


Gray, Hamish
Nelson, Anthony



Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Grist, Ian
Normanton, Tom
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Gummer, John Selwyn
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)
Mr, David Waddington.




NOES


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Davidson, Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Beith, A. J.
Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Grant, John (Islington C)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dixon, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Dormand, Jack
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Douglas, Dick
Haynes, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Dubs, Alfred
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)


Campbell, Ian
Duffy, A. E. P.
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Homewood, William


Canavan, Dennis
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Eastham, Ken
Janner, Hon Greville


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Evans, John (Newton)
John, Brynmor


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Ewing, Harry
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Fitt, Gerard
Kilfedder, James A.


Cryer, Bob
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tarn
Ginsburg, David
Leighton, Ronald

No. 131, in page 101, line 44, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 7.'.—[Mr. Millan.]

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 87.

Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Palmer, Arthur
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Pavitt, Laurie
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)


McCartney, Hugh
Penhaligon, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


McDonald, Or Oonagh
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Welsh, Michael


McElhone, Frank
Prescott, John
White, James (Glasgow, pollok)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Race, Reg
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


McKelvey, William
Robertson, George
Winnick, David


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woodall, Alec


Marshall, David (Ql'sgow, Shettles'n)
Sever, John
Young, David (Bolton East)


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Skinner, Dennis



Millan, Rt. Hon Bruce
Soley, Clive
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Mr. George Morton and


Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
Stoddart, David
Mr. James Tinn.


O'Neill, Martin

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

NORTHERN IRELAND (SOCIAL SECURITY)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 870), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.
By reason of urgency, the order has already been made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974 without a draft having been approved by a resolution of the House. If it is to continue to have effect, it must now receive approval. Its essential purpose is to maintain parity with Great Britain in the cash social services.
The order, which has 16 articles and four schedules, is best described under two main headings. First, it includes provisions corresponding to those recently enacted for the rest of the United Kingdom in the Social Security Act 1980, which, among other matters, provided for the restructuring of the supplementary benefit scheme, for similar treatment for men and women in social security, and a wide range of miscellaneous amendments affecting many aspects of the social security system.
As right hon. and hon. Members are no doubt familiar with the contents of that Act, which was so recently debated in this House, I do not propose to give lengthy explanations of the articles and schedules falling under the first heading but rather to remind the House of the main purpose behind this wide-ranging enactment.
Secondly, the order contains provisions additional to those contained in the Act. They are amendments and repeals of a minor or technical nature and I shall touch on them briefly.
Before I deal with the detailed provisions in the order I should explain why amendments relating to the review and uprating of benefits provided for by section 1 of the Act do not appear in the order. The omission of corresponding provision in the order does not mean that Northern Ireland will be out of step with the rest of the United Kingdom. The explanation lies in the principle of parity with Great Britain in the cash social services to which I have already

referred. This operates to ensure a virtually uniform system of social security throughout the United Kingdom, and provision already exists in the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 for the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland simply to make an uprating order corresponding to any such order made for Great Britain. It follows that the effect of the amendments in section 1 of the Act will be reflected in future up-ratings of benefit in Northern Ireland without any change in the present Northern Ireland law.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The Minister talks of parity in social benefits. Does he not recognise, as I have often put to him, that people in Northern Ireland, especially pensioners and those in a similar position, are less well off than their compatriots in Great Britain because they face a higher cost of living and other difficulties not experienced by people in Great Britain? Should they not therefore receive more benefit than people in Great Britain? Why has no provision been made for a twice-yearly review of pensions?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will recall from the debate that he no doubt attended on the main Social Security Act 1980 that the Act is designed to reform the operations of the social services provisions—supplementary benefits, and so on—on what was then described by the Secretary of State for Social Services as a nil-cost basis. At issue is not the level of benefits but the structure for providing the benefits. It would not be appropriate on this occasion to step outside the ambit of the nil-cost approach to discuss particular variations that may or may not be appropriate in the level of benefits. The principle of parity is assumed both in the main Act and in the order that now applies the main Act to Northern Ireland.
I should like to refer to the new Social Security Advisory Committee provided for in the Social Security Act, and in particular to its relationship to Northern Ireland. This body will have a United Kingdom remit and will include one member drawn from Northern Ireland. It seems to me to follow logically from the principle of parity in the cash social services that this important advisory committee should have within its purview


the social security system in Northern Ireland as well as in Great Britain. The committee will therefore be in a position to advise the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services on matters relating to supplementary benefits, family income supplement, child benefit and national insurance benefits, other than those for industrial injuries and diseases.
Additionally, the Department will be required to seek the views of the committee on proposals for regulations on any of the matters for which the committee has an advisory responsibility. I am sure that the fact that one member of the committee will be appointed from Northern Ireland will be welcomed, and I was pleased to note that on Second Reading debate of the Social Security Bill the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), to give an example, welcomed the introduction of one advisory body for the whole of the United Kingdom.
The Social Security Advisory Committee will assume the advisory responsibilities of the Northern Ireland Supplementary Benefits Commission, and since provision is made in the order for its executive functions to be taken over by the Department of Health and Social Services, the commission, like its Great Britain counterpart, is to be abolished. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the outstanding service which the chairman and members of the Northern Ireland commission, past and present, have rendered, especially during the last 10 difficult years. My predecessors and I owe them a great and real debt of gratitude. In their concern for, and response to, the complex problems of poverty and deprivation in Northern Ireland they have made a most important contribution to the development of public policy.
I turn now to the substance of the order and to its main objective, which is the introduction of an important package of reforms of the supplementary benefits scheme. These reforms are provided for in article 7 and schedule 2.
The pressures on the supplementary benefit scheme in Great Britain, which gave rise to the report "Social Assistance" and led in turn to the publication of the White Paper "The Reform of the

Supplementary Benefits Scheme" exist in Northern Ireland as much as in any other part of the United Kingdom. The Government's proposals for reform in the White Paper are therefore as urgently needed in Northern Ireland as in Great Britain.
The keynote of the reforms is simplification. A new legal and administrative framework provided under the order will ensure that the emphasis of the scheme is shifted from discretionary payments to payments under clear rules of entitlement. This framework will set out a claimant's entitlement and obligations in full in the form of regulations. The regulations will be explained in simple language in a new version of the supplementary benefit handbook to be published by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland.
Other changes include provision for the determination of individual benefit claims, now exercised by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, to be exercised in future by "benefit officers", whose decision.'; will be subject to a right of appeal to a supplementary benefit appeal tribunal, and from that tribunal, on points of law only, to a social security commissioner. The main benefit changes will consist of the alignment of long-term supplementary benefit scale rates with corresponding national insurance rates, the reduction of the present two years qualifying period for the long-term scale rates to one year, and the reduction of the present five scale rates for children to three.
The alignment of long-term scale rates will not take place until the general up-rating of benefits in November, and will mean that for some people the uprating will be marginally less than it would otherwise have been. However, the reduction in the long-term scale rate qualifying period from two years to one year will benefit some 8,000 claimants in Northern Ireland, 20 per cent. of whom are single parents. The reduction of the present five scale rates for children to three will benefit about 20,000 families in Northern Ireland, with 28,000 children in the existing age bands—under 5, and 11 to 12. These families will qualify for up to an extra. £ 3.20 weekly for each child within these age bands.
The order also makes provision for meeting the EEC directive on equal treatment for men and women in social


security. In compliance with this directive, a married woman will be able, from November 1983, to claim an increase in short-term benefits for her husband and any dependent children if the husband's earnings are less than the increase of benefit being claimed for him. As a further step in implementation, married women will be able, from November 1984, to claim for children irrespective of the husband's earnings.
In addition to these matters, the order makes a number of minor, technical and tidying up changes in social security law. For example, amendments to the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975 will result in maternity grant becoming a non-contributory benefit, subject only to satisfaction of conditions as to residence and presence in Northern Ireland. In order to reduce frivolous or vexatious appeals to a social security commissioner from decisions of a local tribunal, provision has been made that no appeal shall lie to a commissioner from a unanimous decision of a local tribunal except with the leave of a tribunal chairman or a commissioner.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman speaks about permission from the chairman or a commissioner. Is that only on a point of law?

Mr. Alison: That is on a point of law.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt confirm that the prescribed conditions as to residence and presence in Northern Ireland should be reciprocal with the corresponding requirements in the mainland. He will be aware that a number of cases from time to time come to his attention, as they do to that of hon. Members, where there is extreme difficulty for persons moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, or vice versa, to make good the total qualification in whichever part of the Kingdom they will draw the benefit. I hope that the Minister will be able to refer to that, at any rate later in the debate.

Mr. Alison: I shall reflect on that as the debate proceeds and certainly attempt to comment on it at the conclusion.
I come now to the second main heading—the changes that are required for

Northern Ireland only. There are six such amendments, and while they are all of a minor nature I think that hon. Members are entitled to an explanation why these arise in what is essentially parity legislation. Articles (6) provides for the insertion of a provision in schedule 1 to the Child Benefit (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 to the effect that in paragraph 1 of the schedule to that order a reference to a child in the care of the DHSS includes a reference to a child in the care of a health and social services board.
The background to this technical amendment is that in the course of a recent child benefit decision the Northern Ireland commissioner commented that he would find it difficult to construe the existing of schedule 1 (1) (f)—which refers to a child in the care of the Department—as if it applied to a child who had been committed to the care of a health and social services board. This amendment puts beyond all doubt that, in the context of child benefit, a child within the care of the Department includes a reference to a child within the care of a health and social services board, which in this as in other respects acts as an agent of the Department under delegated authority.
The second of these amendments deals with medical appeal tribunals established under the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975, to hear appeals arising under the industrial injuries scheme. Provision is made that the Department of Health and Social Services can arrange with any other Government Department that a medical appeal tribunal appointed or recoginsed by that other Department, and consisting of a chairman and two medical practitioners, shall be a medical appeal tribunal for the purposes of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Act 1975.
The background to this amendment is that there is a right of appeal or reference to a medical appeal tribunal appointed by the Department of Health and Social Services against a decision of a medical board on any question of diagnosis in respect of pneumoconiosis, byssinosis or diffuse mesothelioma, but as the incidence of these diseases in Northern Ireland is relatively slight, the medical appeal tribunals there do not include among their members specialists with the necessary


expertise in those fields. The main aim of this amendment is therefore to enable medical appeal tribunals established by the Department of Health and Social Security in Great Britain to decide questions in respect of those diseases on behalf of the Northern Ireland Department of Health and Social Services.
The third of these amendments clarifies the situation where rent rebate or allowance is adjusted to take account of supplementary benefit already paid. This amendment will put beyond doubt that rent rebate or allowance should be reduced by the amount that a benefit officer determines would not have been paid if the award of supplementary benefit had taken the rebate or allowance into account. The effect of the amendment will be to ensure that there is no duplication of payments from public funds.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: May I press the Minister on the question of the medical appeal tribunals that are set up under the relevant section having two doctors and a chairman who is usually a lawyer? Am I right in saying that the Minister said that because the new diseases that have been scheduled—pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and so on—are relatively rare in Northern Ireland these provisions would not operate in Northern Ireland? How would I represent someone at a medical appeal tribunal in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Alison: I merely said that in order to ensure that any claimant or appellant who suffered from these diseases and who had his claim turned down by a tribunal should appeal to a body that had on it medical practitioners who were competent and expert in these diseases. This is very much to the advantage of the appellant. As these diseases do not occur much in Northern Ireland there are unlikely to be the medical practitioners there to give his appeal the thorough medical assessment that it would receive from doctors who are familiar with handling these diseases. We therefore make quite certain that a man's appeal is heard by competent medical people—and there are such people in Britain, as the hon. Gentleman will know because the diseases are prevalent over here—who will assess fairly and scrupulously, with expert knowledge, the validity of the claim. It is very much to the ad-

vantage of the appellant that we should do it that way.
Fourthly, amendment is made to section 9 of the Friendly Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1957, where reference is made to repealed social security legislation and to the now defunct Ministry of Labour and National Insurance. Those references are updated in schedule 3 to the order to reflect current social security legislation and to refer to the Department of Health and Social Services.
The fifth of those amendments concerns the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961 wherein reference is made to the Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority, a body that ceased to exist when the health services in Northern Ireland were reorganised in 1973. That reference is now being changed to the Department of Health and Social Services.
Lastly, provision is made for the repeal of sections 1 (4), 1 (5), 11 (5) and 11 (6) of the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971. Those provisions relate to the discretionary power for exceptional needs payments to be made to debtors by the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Their repeal is in anticipation of the forthcoming abolition of the commission, to which I referred earlier. The provisions are, moreover, spent in the light of present policy and practice. In recent years the commission has, in its discretion, applied the same procedure for assessing entitlement to an exceptional needs payment to all supplementary benefit claimants.
Apart from those six amendments, the order enacts legislation for Northern Ireland corresponding or complementary to that very recently enacted for Great Britain. It maintains the principle of parity between the cash social services in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. On that basis, I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Brynmor John: As the Minister reminded us, this is a debate in which some of the main provisions of the Social Security Act 1980—the No. 1 Bill that was overtaken in mid-course by the No. 2 Bill—are being enacted in relation to Northern Ireland. There are some provisions in the regulations to which we do not object, such as


the measures that give equality of treatment to men and women—for example, for family income supplement—and the reduction from two years to one year for qualification for long-term benefit.
The House will not need to be reminded too closely of those parts of the measure that have already been applied to Northern Ireland. The Minister boasted of a parity of treatment. It was an equality of misery. The Acts severed the linkage, which meant that for many people there was a reduction in their standard of living and an increase in their misery. As the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said, the cost of living is 2 per cent. higher, on average, in Northern Ireland. For pensioners' items it is even greater, with fuel costs about 25 per cent. higher. Although that is not an argument for special treatment, it means that the severance of the linkage will cause an increasing number of people in Northern Ireland to be pushed back into the poverty and disadvantage that they were in for too long.
I remind the House that 14 per cent. of the population in Northern Ireland is to some extent dependent upon supplementary benefits of one sort or another. That may appeal to the Official Unionist Party, to judge by the intervention of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in yesterday's debate, but it does not appeal to many other people in Northern Ireland.
My second point is that the disadvantage and the difficulty in Northern Ireland is compounded by the Government's steadfast refusal to make unemployment a long-term benefit for payment purposes. Tuesday's figures of 84,700 unemployed in Northern Ireland—or 14.7 per cent. of the insured population—are truly horrifying. It is even more horrifying that more than one-third of the men have been unemployed for more than a year and nearly one-quarter for more than two years. If that is not worthy of long-term benefit I do not know what is.
The problem is accentuated when one considers the ages of the long-term unemployed. In the age group 35 to 49, 49 per cent. of the males have been unemployed for more than a year and 37½ per cent. of them have been unemployed for more than two years. Whatever else may be said about the unemployment

situation, it is, to put it mildly, in the highest degree unlikely that with increasing unemployment and declining job vacancies there will be a vast improvement in the position. In fact, all the indications are that it will get very much worse. For many people unemployment is likely to mean long-term misery, without long-term benefit rates to compensate for it, and that is unfair.
Our chief ground of concern about the order, and why we shall divide the House on it, centres on the decision to abolish the Supplementary Benefits Commission for Northern Ireland.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear—it was not clear to me from his remarks—whether he supports the principle of parity of benefits and conditions of benefits between the Province and the rest of the Kingdom? He appeared at one point to be suggesting that the benefits and conditions in Northern Ireland ought to be different from those in the rest of the Kingdom.

Mr. John: I have made it clear. This does, of course, bear on the question of discretion. There ought to be parity in discretionary payments in kind, but they ought to be on a very much more generous scale for the whole of the United Kingdom. Added to that, as the hon. Member for Down, North said, there is the fact that the abolition of the discretion that now exists will mean that the insurance officers in Northern Ireland will be less able than they are at present to take into account factors such as higher fuel costs.
Perhaps I may revert to the question of the abolition of the SBC. The Minister said that this proposal was similar to what had happened in Great Britain. It may be argued that for the sake of consistency Northern Ireland should be similarly treated, but the fact that one mistake has been made does not mean that two mistakes ought to be made just to be consistent in the wrong course that has been adopted. I believe that the abolition of the commission is a mistake.
The commission has two functions. One is policy making, and it has had a great deal of flexibility and discretion in the way in which it has performed that task. There has been criticism of the commission's way of doing things, but we are


now, we are told, to replace it with entitlement under regulations that I understand are to be debated next week. They will need to be fairly special regulations if they are to foresee most of the problems that society can throw up, without leaving a wide discretion to the officer concerned. They will lead to rigidity of the sort to which discretion does not give rise, and I shall be interested to see how the Government will tackle this problem and what the effect will be on the people of Northern Ireland.
The SBC brought a measure of independence to its decisions. Furthermore, it produced annual reports by which its work could be judged. Despite all the noises about ministerial accountability, I doubt very much whether the recipients of benefit will have as sensitive treatment from the new regime as they had from the old. Appeals for money will henceforth be decided not by the commission but by people described as benefit officers, with the rights of appeal that the Minister mentioned.
I have never hidden my concern about the way in which our administrative tribunals work. They often constitute an apparent denial of justice to the applicant, because, although the system was intended to be comprehensible to the lay applicant, it has become so hidebound by the doctrine of precedents and the quotation of cases to which only the insurance officer and the tribunal have access that the person who appears before them for a benefit—I cite, for example, medical tribunals—is bewildered by the procedure. It often appears to such a person that what is taking place is a cosy chat between the insurance officer and the tribunal, and that he is a mere spectator.
I believe that without further improvement in the system the order will not live up to the objects enshrined in the explanatory note—that of simplifying the social security system. To many it will merely mean that the provisions are more complicated and more bewildering, and that the persons affected are less able to make representations.
As the Supplementary Benefits Commission report for Northern Ireland showed on the last occasion, much of the value of fixed entitlement—the Minister made great point of the question that, instead of discretion, we now have fixed and certain entitlement—depends on the

scales fixed and on the concept that the rates should more realistically reflect people's living expenses. Without that, I believe that the new system will engender at least as much dissatisfaction as the present one. We know already from the two Acts that the House has passed that the Government are making the gap between benefit payments and the actual costs of a person's day-to-day living more unrealistic than it ever has been, certainly in the last decade.
Then we have the advisory function of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It was in this that its independent function was seen to have the greatest advantage. Now an advisory committee is to be set up for the whole of the United Kingdom on which there will be only one representative for Northern Ireland. Clearly, those needs and shortcomings that are special to Northern Ireland will be submerged in that new body, on which there will be only one representative, instead of there being an advisory council. I believe that the Government, who so fondly embrace devolution in other contexts for Northern Ireland, have been singularly illogical in proposing that the Supplementary Benefits Commission for Northern Ireland should be abolished and that the advisory function for Northern Ireland should be abolished.
Lord Elton, who has attracted more than his share of criticism for his deeds in recent days, said in the debate in the other place last week that we were not to worry, because the new United Kingdom body might devise a framework and a method of procedure suitable to cater for Northern Ireland's needs. Viewed in another way, it might not. The whole climate for advisory bodies has changed. The Minister says that they will have an advisory function. I remind the Minister of what happened to the last two recommendations of the Supplementary Benefits Commission. It advised that benefit rates should be index-linked. We know what the Government said about that. It advised also that the sort of no-cost review that we are discussing tonight was a sham and should not be embarked upon. We know what the Government thought about that.
So what climate is there for a realistic advisory committee in the present framework? There is a large body of opinion


in Northern Ireland that is very worried about the change. How on earth can one person represent the needs of the whole committee? I put it even more directly. How can one person of the type likely to be appointed by the Government to a body such as this reflect the needs and aspirations of the poor and their need for extra diet, extra heating and extra clothing, when in all probability he or she will have no more than a remote idea of the needs and pressures upon those in need? Two or three persons might find it hard to represent 1½ million people, but at least with two or three there might be a rough cross-section of people with relevant experience.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. John: I will finish this section of my speech and then I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am endeavouring to give other hon. Members an opportunity to take part in the debate, which is limited by time.
With one appointment only, we are placing an impossible burden on that one person who. in all probability, will have no personal experience of the needs of those on whose behalf he is expected to speak and comment intelligently to the advisory committee.

Mr. Powell: I wondered how many representatives from Wales there would be on this body.

Mr. John: I accept that the idea of one advisory body of such a limited nature is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I am no anti-devolutionist, and if a body is set up to advise the Government I say that it should include a cross-section of the people concerned, who will have a relevant knowledge of the needs of the people concerned, and should not be drawn from the lists of the great and the good, which too often happens.
The totality of the debate is that although there are some valuable proposals in the order, its central core is bad. It incorporates an attack on the United Kingdom as a welfare State at the very time that the Government are mounting a massive attack on Britain as

an industrial State. That is why we shall oppose the order in the Lobbies tonight.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland is different from the rest of the United Kingdom, although part of that kingdom, just as there is a difference between parts of Scotland and other parts of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, and in the same way as Scotland is different from Wales.
Northern Ireland is passing through a difficult time in terms of employment. Any sensible person looking at Northern Ireland today knows very well that in the coming months thousands more people will join the ever-increasing dole queues. Northern Ireland has become almost an economic wasteland. I think of my constituency, which once had less unemployment than any other part of the United Kingdom and now has over 15 per cent. unemployed. In Cookstown and Strabane, 27 per cent. of the people are unemployed.
There are exceptional needs in Northern Ireland, and if we destroy the discretionary power we shall deny help to people who need it. The worst part of this order is the destruction of the right of discretion. Some hon. Members attend tribunals, speak for their constituents, and seek to help those who have been blighted with this cancer of unemployment. In every society there will be layabouts and people who want to milk the social service schemes, but they are a small percentage of the vast number of people who would like to be employed.
About a year ago I attended a tribunal at which the chairman had the audacity to say to a woman for whom I was pleading for a special needs grant "Eight pounds a week is enough for you to live on". How can anyone live on £ 8 a week? If we destroy the right of discretion the people of Northern Ireland will be placed in difficult circumstances.
I noted what the Minister said about the Supplementary Benefits Commission. He said that it had done a great job, but deserved an obituary notice. The Minister did not come here simply to bury the Supplementary Benefits Commission. He came both to praise it and to bury it. If it has done the job that it was supposed to do why when we are entering an even bleaker period in Northern Ireland,


should we destroy something that has been proved to do a good job? The Minister must face that question this evening.
The position in Northern Ireland has no relevance to that in Wales. It has no relevance to that in Scotland. The employment position in Northern Ireland today is entirely different. In all parts of the United Kingdom there is access by land to raw materials. Northern Ireland has no raw materials. There is a stretch of water dividing Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom and the raw materials must be brought in. The finished product must be got out.
In the terrible state of affairs that we have at present, how business is able to keep competitive I do not know. Indeed, both workers and management should be greatly praised for the way in which they have been able to keep their heads above water in these difficult days.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I remind the hon. Gentleman that there are other parts of the United Kingdom that are separated by sea from the mainland. I happen to represent one such constituency. I fully recognise all the problems that exist in the Province and that we do not have all the problems of the high level of unemployment there, but we are paying considerably more for our petrol. We are paying £ 1.45 for four-star petrol, whereas people in Northern Ireland are paying £ 1.37, or thereabouts.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The little stretch of water that divides the hon. Member's constituency from the rest of the United Kingdom is nothing. What utter nonsense to make such a comparison. I might as well argue tonight that Rathlin Island, which I also represent in the House, is removed from the rest of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] If the only Liberal contribution to the debate is the one that we heard earlier it shows the utter bankruptcy of the Liberal Party in regard to Northern Ireland. It shows that the Liberals are in utter ignorance of what is happening at the present time in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: My geography is a bit weak, but does Tory Island fall within the hon. Gentleman's constituency?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No, it does not fall within my constituency, thank God; Rathlin Island does.
It is evident now that the exceptional needs grants are to be abolished, because there will only be entitlement grants. I should like the Minister to consider the exceptional needs grants. He knows Northern Ireland. He should bear in mind the price of energy in Northern Ireland and the price of heating and lighting.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) talks about paying more for petrol in the Isle of Wight than we have to pay in Northern Ireland. What about electricity costs? What about gas costs, which are three times higher than they are in the rest of the United Kingdom? We have no benefit from the natural gas that is supplied to the rest of the United Kingdom. It should be remembered also that the person who is receiving benefits has to pay just as much as anyone else for these items.
I should like the Minister to tell us a little more about the appeals system. If a local tribunal finds against a person, there has always been the right of appeal, but it now seems that that right of appeal is to be completely abolished, except on a point of law. That is a serious matter. If the tribunal is unanimous, there is no appeal except on a point of law. That means that the case cannot be reheard. Therefore, it is a final appeal to the local tribunal.
Is that what will happen? Will there be only one appeal, the rest being on a point of law if there is a unanimous decision? This is an important matter.
How many people have lost their cases before the local tribunal but on appeal have won them? Those would be very interesting figures and relevant to the debate.
I regret that because of the way in which legislation for Northern Ireland is controlled we have only one and a half hours to discuss this matter. Many Northern Ireland Members want to speak in the debate. I should like to develop other points, but other Members are entitled to be heard.
We cannot amend the order. Some matters in the order are good. There is only one course for us to follow. I shall have no option but to vote against the order.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The order completes the application to Northern Ireland of the changed system that was embodied in what is now the Social Security Act 1980. That measure was passed on a Division. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, as did many other hon. Members.
The question that has to be faced immediately we apply that Act to Northern Ireland is the question that I raised with the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), namely, the question of parity; whether we believe that the same benefits, rules and principles of application should apply throughout the United Kingdom just as the same taxes and systems of tax levies apply throughout the United Kingdom.
It has already been suggested that parity takes no account of the different circumstances of the different parts of the kingdom. It certainly does not. Parity means that the rates that are fixed for benefits, burdens and duties throughout the kingdom take no account of differing circumstances.
Reference has been made to the differing circumstances of Northern Ireland compared with the mainland. We have the figures for Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland is measured separately in those respects. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) reminded the House—I am not sure that he realised that this was the point that he was making—that there is no cost of living index for the Isle of Wight, just as there is no cost of living index for London, the North-East or any other part of the United Kingdom, but we have parity in Great Britain, despite the different circumstances in one part of the mainland compared with another. Parity for Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom means acceptance of parity in that sense.

Mr. John: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will recognise our consistency. On the passage of the Act we, too, criticised the removal of the element of discretion. There are two elements in payments—first, the parity that is statutorily laid down and, secondly, the discretion that takes account of special needs. A major part of the attack on the order is

the removal of the discretion and, therefore, of the ability to compensate for differing costs of living, and so on.

Mr. Powell: This is a matter that I hope the Minister will clarify when he intervenes again. What is being done is not, as I understand it, the elimination of discretion in the sense in which the hon. Gentleman was speaking of it; it is the substitution of a known and published system of rules for assessment of the special payments whereas previously there was widespread complaint that no one knew and no one could be sure of the consistency of the rules that were being applied by officials in different parts of the country.
For years I listened to complaints, not least from the Opposition Benches, that there were no published rules to which claimants could resort that showed on what basis the special payments were to be made. That demand has been met and principles and rules upon which the discretion is to be exercised will be published. The publication of the rules does not oust discretion. The hon. Gentleman misconceives the point, as have others, in assuming that discretionary payments will be eliminated. I hope that that will be confirmed and made clear by the Minister when he replies.
The other matter of complaint is the substitution of one United Kingdom social services advisory committee for the advisory functions of the two previous Supplementary Benefits Commissions. If we are to have parity—if we are to have the same principles applied throughout the United Kingdom—it seems to me and my hon. Friends to follow—this is why we voted for the relevant Bill on Second Reading—that it is only logical and correct to have a single advisory body that considers together the circumstances of the whole of the kingdom. Northern Ireland is represented by one member on that committee, and its existence and separate circumstances are recognised while the equally special circumstances of other parts of the kingdom are not recognised in the same way.
The application of this new system to Northern Ireland raises several constitutional issues. I touched upon them on Second Reading on 20 January, but I think it right briefly to mention them again.
We hear a good deal about the importance of having a corpus of legislation preserved intact for Northern Ireland—a Northern Ireland statute book. Here, there has been part enactment by a United Kingdom statute, and the other part is now being enacted by a Northern Ireland Order in Council. There is no question of a Northern Ireland statute for supplementary benefit. If anyone wishes to ascertain what the law is on supplementary benefit in Northern Ireland he will have to look in two places instead of one. He will have to read the Social Security Act 1980 and the order. This is a refutation, out of the mouth of the Northern Ireland Office, of its claim that there is a sacrosanct Northern Ireland statute book that it has to maintain through thick and thin whatever the deficiencies in the legislative process that that may involve.
I turn to two of the deficiencies. First, we are not able to have the same procedures following the recommendations of the social services advisory committee as apply in the rest of the kingdom. The reason for that is that we are persisting in legislating for Northern Ireland upon the basis of the 1973 constitution, which no one imagines is ever going to be operated again.
We persist in doing that. We do that in these rules. We did that in the 1980 Act. The consequence is that there is not parity of treatment. There is not the same legislative opportunity in handling the subordinate instruments that will be made under the order as is enjoyed in the rest of the kingdom. I appreciate that the Government went some way towards remedying that. They undertook that the recommendations of the advisory committee—in so far as they referred to specifically Northern Ireland—would be published and available, as if that were a statutory requirement. Indeed it should be a statutory requirement, just as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The ultimate anomaly is that legislation that could and should be 100 per cent. United Kingdom legislation is enacted by a different method for Northern Ireland. The Social Security Act 1980 has been debated by both Houses of Parliament at every stage. The arguments have been fully traversed Those who represent constituencies in Great Britain may wonder why they have to be in the

Chamber between the hours of 12 am and I am if they are to vote only on exactly the same issues, affecting a part of the United Kingdom to which the same rules will apply. I shall tell hon. Members why that is so. In particular, I direct my information at the Patronage Secretary and his assistants. The Government persist in denying Northern Ireland—although it is part of the United Kingdom—the privilege of being legislated for in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom, and in the same statutes, although the same rules will apply.
Recently, the nation was led to believe that a legislature would soon be elected in Northern Ireland that would take this burden away from the House of Commons. That delusion cannot have survived the Government's attempt to delineate a constitution. The time has come for the Government and the House to face the fact that as long as Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom—as it is declared to be—the law for that part must be made in exactly the same way as it is made for other parts of the United Kingdom. The absurdity of the situation in which we find ourselves can only reinforce what I have said.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he would like to see a solution for Northern Ireland that is similar to the arrangements between the Principality of Wales and the rest of Great Britain?

Mr. Powell: In the context of the Bill, I am arguing that if law is to apply uniformly throughout the United Kingdom, that law should be made for the United Kingdom, by one United Kingdom Act of Parliament.

Mr. James Kilfedder: As other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall be brief. In response to the hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I make no apology for having voted against the Social Security Bill whenever I had the opportunity to do so. I resent the Government's refusal to enable pensioners to keep pace with wages and prices. They say that pensioners must be satisfied with the minimum pension. They speak glowingly about the hope of improving that


pension. Despite everything that they said at the time, pensioners, particularly those in Northern Ireland, will suffer severely during the coming months and years.
Pensioners and other deprived people in Northern Ireland suffer because of the high cost of food and fuel and the high cost of living generally. Greater concern should be shown for the elderly who, after giving years of hard work to the community, are entitled to something at the end of their days.
I regret that the Government refuse to accept twice-yearly uprating of pensions. Whenever a pension increase is proposed inflation wipes out the increase before it is made. That causes great hardship, particularly in Northern Ireland.
On Tuesday we heard a statement about unemployment. Nearly 85,000 people in Northern Ireland are unemployed. The figure is already out of date. Many people have become unemployed since the figures were compiled over a week ago. Thousands of workers are under threat of redundancy. A far worse figure will apply shortly. At this grave time for Northern Ireland greater consideration should be given to dealing with benefits for people in need.
I regret that the discretionary element has been taken away. It will add to difficulties in the Province. I regret that the Supplementary Benefits Commission is to be replaced by what is described as designated supplementary benefit officers. They will carry out the Government policy of making cuts and keeping benefits to the minimum. I have often had to write to the Supplementary Benefits Commission. I was glad to rely on its support in obtaining benefit for my constituents who were in need. I shall join the official Opposition in voting against the order.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I cannot claim to speak for other Northern Ireland Members, but I am increasingly frustrated at the way in which Northern Ireland business is conducted in the House. The order is of prime importance to Northern Ireland, whether there are 85,000 or 100,000 unemployed. The social security Acts are an attack on the Welfare State. We need more than one and a half hours to debate such an attack.
Something must be done to extend our debates.
The legislation is totally unacceptable. The Minister has given no justification for the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission in Northern Ireland. The Minister and Lord Elton in another place praised to the high heavens the wonderful job that it did in difficult circumstances. They say that it is so good that we can do without it now. That is a slur on the integrity of the personnel who gave signal service to the people of Northern Ireland. Replacing them with a single individual who will sit on an overall United Kingdom body will in no way fulfil the needs of the people in Northern Ireland.
Discretionary power should not be removed. When a person claims a social security benefit in future he will be shown the rule book and told by the officer that he has to abide by the rules. The Welfare State was built on humanity and compassion for the underprivileged and weak. It is not merely a set of regulations. It is a vicious attack on the concept of the Welfare State to remove humanity and compassion from the system.
In Northern Ireland we have the Payments for Debt (Emergency Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 which does not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom. Electricity bills in Northern Ireland are three times as great as those in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Gas bills are two and a half times greater. Coal is dearer than elsewhere in the United Kingdom. People in Northern Ireland are therefore getting increasingly into debt. If people get into debt, under that Act the benefit allocation branch deducts money from benefits. The weekly benefit paid to the claimant is then far below what is regarded by the Supplementary Benefits Commission as the poverty line. There is, therefore, extreme poverty and social deprivation in Northern Ireland.
I am delighted to see that there is to be an attempt to abolish the FIS restrictions placed on cohabitees to bring the system into line with that which appertains in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Skinner: It is only a sprat.

Mr. Fitt: I recognise that it is only a gloss. The Government had to take that step because of EEC regulations. Without them, they would probably not have made even that slight improvement.
In answer to questions from my noble Friend Lord Blease, Lord Elton could give no justification for abolishing the commission in Northern Ireland and introducing new regulations. Lord Elton said that he had the idea that it might not work:
if experience of the new arrangements suggests the need for a separate body, we will re-examine it. We shall try it. If it does not come up to expectations, then we shall look at it again. And the noble Lord is invited to give his views then."—[Official Report. House of Lords. 17 July 1980; Vol. 411 c 2023.]
The noble Lord does not have to think about the new system. We know that the Supplementary Benefits Commission in Northern Ireland has fulfilled a useful function and should not be abolished.
I find the order completely unacceptable. We have 85,000 people unemployed. What justification is there for not giving long-term benefits to the long-term unemployed in Northern Ireland? The Minister should go back to his Department and find out how many people in Northern Ireland have been unemployed for five, 10, 20 or 30 years. In answer to a parliamentary question I learnt that one person in Northern Ireland had been on the unemployment register for 39 years, and there are hundreds of others who have been unemployed for many years. People in Northern Ireland are reporting to the unemployment register only quarterly, because there is no possibility of finding employment, certainly under this Government. Between last month and this there has been an increase in unemployment of 11,000. The figure has jumped from 74,000 to 85,000. When the next figures are published, they will be even higher.
Northern Ireland is different. It has levels of poverty and social deprivation that are unknown in any other part of the United Kingdom or Western Europe. The people of Northern Ireland do not deserve to be hit in the face with legislation such as this.

Mr. A. W. Stallard: I shall not take long, but I wish to refer to the question of parity. It would seem from what the Minister and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that the debate is about parity. They seemed to imply that as long as we could establish parity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland we should not discuss the principle or the amounts involved.
This debate involves the same arguments that we had on the social security Bills. If parity means that pensioners must have a 54-week year and have to wait an extra two weeks for their pensions, we oppose it. It is not good enough to say that as long as there is parity we should not argue about the details. We must spell out to the people of Northern Ireland and to the people of the rest of the United Kingdom what is involved in the legislation.
The right hon. Member for Down, South seems to see everything on a constitutional basis, but we are not arguing about the constitution and we are not pre-empting the discussions that are taking place on constitutional questions. We are discussing a particularly nasty and evil attack on social and welfare benefits in Britain and the Six Counties.
A number of matters ought to be drawn to the attention of those in Northern Ireland. I know from my contacts with Age Concern in this country and in Northern Ireland and with other voluntary bodies that there is deep concern in Northern Ireland, which is the most deprived part of the United Kingdom. The Government's legislation will make that deprivation and poverty even worse. It is not good enough to say that that is all right, because we have parity and everyone is getting the same. Unless we can argue the principles involved and discuss the amounts there is little point in debates such as this.
The treatment of the long-term unemployed, both here and in Northern Ireland, is a disgrace. They should be entitled to extra benefits. The position is even more stark in the light of the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). The long-term unemployed and their families are to be made to suffer from the dogmatic attack


by the Government on the Welfare State. We oppose that, whether it involves parity or not.
Pensioners have been told that they will have to wait another two weeks for their pensions and that in spite of the increase in the cost of living the shortfall will not be made up. They have also been told that in spite of a manifesto commitment, clearly argued on every Tory platform in this country as well as in the Six Counties, there will be no change in the earnings rule for pensioners.
There has also been an attack on occupational pensioners.

Mr. Fitt: Does my hon. Friend realise that Unionist Members are running true to form? Every Unionist Member voted against the inception of the Welfare State in 1947.

Mr. Stallard: I spoke at length in Committee on the question of discretion. The abolition of the SBC takes away the element of discretion that has been inherent in the operation of the system so far. I can do no better than to quote the director of Age Concern in England, Mr. David Hobman. He said:
Without a significant increase in supplementary benefit levels this attempt to simplify the system and reduce the amount of discretion local social security officers have to take account of individual claimants' circumstances its bound to result in rough justice.
Rough justice means that a lot of people suffer. Mr. Hobman went on to say:
For instance, over 7,000 pensioners will lose their supplementary benefit
because they have more than the required amount of capital.
Supplementary benefit recipients on occupational pensions will lose £ 52 per year. Single payments for replacing 'naturally' outworn clothing, footwear and small household goods will be stopped. Supplementary benefit help with payment for local authority home helps will be stopped, and qualifications for many extra allowances will be tightened.
That is right. This is the fear of voluntary organisations, here and there, about the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the loss of discretion that will ensue. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd that we should oppose this proposal as fiercely as we opposed it when it was introduced for this part of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Dalyell: One of the troubles with these debates is that Ministers have insufficient time to reply to the questions that have been put. I would like to elicit some facts about the total cost of benefit involved. If the figure of unemployed in Northern Ireland is to be not 85,000 but, one suspects, 100,000, I should like an estimate, albeit a rough one, of the cost.
I have only half a minute in which to speak, but I cannot restrain myself from saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) that, although Northern Ireland probably has the worst poverty in the United Kingdom, the patience of many people on this side of the water is growing very thin and sympathy is becoming very short. Hon. Members have problems in their own constituencies. What many people are now saying—this will doubtless be reflected at the Labour Party conference, and Irish Members should be under no misapprehension about the strong feelings that exist—is "A plague on all your houses. We have our own problems." There should be no misunderstanding. Unless we bring an end to this nonsense, which many Irish leaders seem to enjoy and revel in, great resentment will continue to boil up on this side of the water.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) started his short intervention with the daunting assertion that I would not have sufficient time to answer any of the questions that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman is right in respect of the last question that he put. I cannot produce instantly the figure for which he asked. If he cares to table a written question we shall see that he gets the information.
I shall try to disprove the hon. Member's assertion that there will be insufficient time to reply to the debate by answering as many questions as possible, although my time is limited. The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) made his main point the broad question of parity. I thought that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) expounded fully and convincingly the value and logic of the principle of parity as applied to Northern Ireland and as reflected in the order that we are debating. Although I recognise that Northern


Ireland is a particularly poor part of the United Kingdom, which has suffered badly from the relative economic decline of the country, it would not be acceptable for the Government to make an exception in the case of Northern Ireland and to maintain benefit there at a higher level than in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South pointed out, there are many other areas throughout the United Kingdom where there are poverty, deprivation and economic decline. It would not be right to single out one area from all the rest and to give the people of that one area special privileges not accorded to anyone else in the United Kingdom. How would the Government be able to justify that action to the rest of the country?

Mr. John: The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. He will know that we criticised that when it came up for the rest of the United Kingdom. What we are criticising is what he says in his own explanatory document:
The emphasis will thus move from discretion to entitlement.
That will mean a great deal of hardship to many people.

Mr. Alison: I shall say something later about the discretionary aspect, which was raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
The fact is that social security policy is decided on a United Kingdom basis. In the process, the needs of each region, including Northern Ireland, are taken into account, but the end result is a system of cash benefits that applies evenly throughout the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd also made some general criticisms about the abolition of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, particularly that for Northern Ireland, and the setting up in its place of the Social Security Advisory Committee. There have been representations that Northern Ireland should have its own social security advisory committee corresponding to its own independent Supplementary Benefits Commission, which is now superseded. However, the Government are firmly of the opinion that this is not the best approach; as the social security system in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is on parity principles in all major respects identical it seems sensible that the new advisory

committee should have a United Kingdom remit.
As I have said, a place on the committee will be filled by a representative from Northern Ireland, thus giving the Province a voice in the centre. The Northern Ireland member will be free to seek assistance from official and other appropriate sources, so that he can make a full contribution to the committee's work. I readily acknowledge that if the constitutional position changes, or if the experience of the operation of the proposed arrangements suggests that they are inadequate, the situation will be reexamined.
The hon. Gentleman spoke rather scathingly of how little one person on the new committee could do, but the minimum figure for the new committee is eight individuals. One person from Northern Ireland will therefore have the job of representing the needs of 1½ million people. The average numbers represented by the eight members for all 55 million people of the United Kingdom will be 7 million, so the one representative for Northern Ireland will have much less of a burden to carry than the other individual commissioners, on a strictly pro rata basis.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the serious unemployment in Northern Ireland. His misgivings were reflected by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who spoke of some very long-term unemployed people there. I share the concern that we must all feel about the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland. However, it is impossible for the Province to escape the consequences of the deepening recession, which is affecting all industrial economies. These figures reflect the results of the trends that have been evident throughout not only Britain but the world in recent months.
It is worthwhile keeping in mind that the latest figures are considerably swollen by the large number of young people registering for work for the first time. Previous evidence indicates that many of them will return to education and others will find employment after the holiday period.
The maintenance of the determined and sustained efforts to encourage the creation of new jobs continues to bear fruit. In the first six months of this year


over 3,400 new jobs in manufacturing industry in the Province were successfully negotiated. In addition, our concern about unemployment is clearly shown in the wide range of counter-unemployment schemes, which, together with other grants from the Department of Manpower Services designed to encourage the creation of additional jobs, are presently helping to support 22,000 jobs, there.
Our deep concern for youth unemployment is shown by the youth opportunities programme, which is specifically geared to unemployed young people. This year we have increased the YOP by over 20 per cent., which means that over 7,000 places are now available in the programme, which costs over £ 16 million a year.
The counter-unemployment measures include the temporary short-time working compensation scheme, which is currently protecting over 5,000 jobs. This scheme offers generous assistance to firms that use short-time working as an alternative to redundancy, and was due to end in March. However, my right hon. Friend extended it beyond that date. The measures also include the job release scheme, which gives a grant to people who retire early and through which 1,400 jobs are being filled by previously unemployed people.
I heard the hon. Member for Pontypridd saying, sotto voce—perhaps I should say "muttering under his breath"—something about the long-term unemployed. It is true that the qualifying period for the long-term scale rate is being reduced from two years to one year, excluding the unemployed. Unfortunately, because of financial constraints it has not been possible to extend this improvement to the long-term unemployed. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his Government, who left office only 15 months ago, did not extend the long-term scale rate to the unemployed claimant. The reason was the same as that affecting this Government: the resources were simply not available to do it.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North criticised the discretionary element that he discerned in the operations of the outgoing Supplementary Benefits Commission. I thought that the right hon. Member for Down, South made a fair counterpoint when he referred to the improve-

ment that arises from the removal at the same time of wide variations and many dissimiliarities. The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the most demoralising effects of discretionary payments is that two people quite close to each other with apparently similar circumstances get different benefits as a result of the various needs facilities.
I dispute, however, that the change will mean a worse deal, which is what the hon. Member for Antrim, North was arguing. The expenses for which exceptional needs payment will be made will be specified in regulations, as will the circumstances in which grants may be awarded. The new regulations will be broadly in line with the policy of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, so in that sense there will be very little variation, but it will be crystallised and clarified. The regulations were published on 17 July, so the hon. Gentleman can examine them thoroughly. I do not think that his fears about the disappearance of the discretionary element will be justified but there will be a great improvement in the appearance of parity, intelligibility and certainty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on and take some courage from that.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of observations about his dissatisfaction with the appeals facilities that we are introducing. He asked how many people had lost their cases and subsequently won them on appeal. The only figures that I have been able to find for him in the short time available—although I shall let him have some more—are for 1978, in which in just over 3,000 appeals against supplementary benefits decisions 30 per cent. of the appeals led to decisions in the claimants' favour. There has therefore been some benefit in appealing in the past. I am sure that there will be in the future.
The right hon. Member for Down, South asked earlier whether I could throw some light on the movement of people from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, and vice versa. Article 39 of the Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 provides for the making of reciprocal arrangements for co-ordinating the operation of the supplementary benefits scheme in Northern Ireland and Great Britain. No such arrangements are in operation at the moment, but if the right


hon. Gentleman has particular cases in mind which have presented difficulties perhaps he will let me have details. We may be able to throw a lever to put the facilities into operation.
The right hon. Gentleman made some comments that are now familiar to me—even in the short time that I have been in the Northern Ireland Office—about his dissatisfaction with the constitutional position. I am glad that he at least acknowledged that we have taken one step towards helping him by the provision of section 10 of the Social Security Act 1980, which cannot be implemented during direct rule. On the question of the laying of a copy of the report of the new Social Services Advisory Committee, due to the absence of a Northern Ireland Assembly or equivalent body, I confirm that arrangements have been made to forward copies of the reports on Northern Ireland regulations, together with the relevant regulations, direct to Northern Ireland Members simultaneously with their being placed in the Library. In effect, they will be publicly available.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no justification for the variations that we are making. He said that we have to consult both the Act and the order to obtain a clear view of what is entailed for Northern Ireland. He argued that there is total similarity and identity between the two procedures in the two parts of the kingdom. It is not as easy as that. There are circumstances in

Division No. 428]
AYES
[12.37 pm


Alison, Michael
Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Normanton, Tom


Bendall, Vivian
Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Matthew


Best, Keith
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Blackburn, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Bradford, Rev. R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bright, Graham
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ross. Wm. (Londonderry)


Brinton, Tim
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


Cadbury, Jocelyn
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Speller, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Marlow, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cope, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Corrie, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Martin


Cranborne, Viscount
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Allan (East Renfrewshire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Strading Thomas, J.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Tebbit, Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mudd, David
Thompson, Donald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Murphy, Christopher
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter

which Northern Ireland regulations must differ from Great Britain regulations. A case in point would be circumstances arising from the fact that the Province has a common land border with the Irish Republic. There may be occasions to make regulations to prevent the abuse of unemployment benefit by claimants residing in border areas. There would be no need for similar regulations in Great Britain.

In my opening speech I referred to the effect of a decision by a High Court judge in respect of uncertainty in earlier Northern Ireland statutes. I am afraid that we are now landed with the effect of an earlier code of law relating to the days of Stormont. The right hon. Gentleman knows, whether or not he approves of it, that we are trying to make some constitutional change leading to devolved government for the Province. Until we know about the future we are bound to proceed on the basis on which we have managed so far.

I hope that the hon. Member for West Lothian feels that I have attempted to answer most, or some, of the points raised. In the light of the debate I beg that the order be approved.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

It being one and half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business):—

The House divided, Ayes 86, Noes 37.

Division No. 428]
AYES
[12.37 pm


Alison, Michael
Hawksley, Warren
Nelson, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Normanton, Tom


Bendall, Vivian
Hooson, Tom
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Parris, Matthew


Best, Keith
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Blackburn, John
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Rathbone, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Bradford, Rev. R.
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Bright, Graham
Le Marchant, Spencer
Ross. Wm. (Londonderry)


Brinton, Tim
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rossi, Hugh


Brooke, Hon Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Lyell, Nicholas
Scott, Nicholas


Cadbury, Jocelyn
MacGregor, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Speller, Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Marlow, Tony
Stainton, Keith


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cope, John
Mills, lain (Meriden)
Steen, Anthony


Corrie, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Stevens, Martin


Cranborne, Viscount
Molyneaux, James
Stewart, Allan (East Renfrewshire)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)
Strading Thomas, J.


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Tebbit, Norman


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mudd, David
Thompson, Donald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Murphy, Christopher
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Grist, Ian
Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter




Waddington, David
Ward, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wakeham, John
Watson, John
Mr. Carol Mather and


Waldegrave, Hon William
Wickenden, Keith
Lord James Dogulas-Hamilton.


Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Younger, Rt Hon George





NOES


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Robinson, Peter (Befast East)


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Skinner, Dennis


Campbell-Savours, Date
Haynes, Frank
Soley, Clive


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John
Stallard, A. W.


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
John, Brynmor
Tinn, James


Cryer, Bob
Kilfedder, James A.
Welsh, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)
Woodall, Alec


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McCartney, Hugh
Young, David (Bolton East)


Dixon, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)



Dormand, Jack
McNally, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Douglas, Dick
Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. George Morton and


Evans, John (Newton)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. Terry Davis.


Fitt, Gerard
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)




Question accordingly agreed to. Resolved,




That the Social Security (Northern Ireland") Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 870), a copy of which was laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS)

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): I beg to move,
That the draft Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.
It may be for the convenience of the House if we take at the same time the next motion—
That the draft Criminal Justice and Armed Forces (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Is it for the convenience of the House that the two orders be taken together? [Hon. Members: "Yes."] So be it.

Mr. Alison: With the opening of the young offenders centre last June, courts in Northern Ireland have the power to sentence a young person between 17 and 21 to a period of detention of less than three years in the young offenders centre. If they consider that a custodial sentence of three years or more is necessary they can sentence the offender to prison. The court also has to decide whether a sentence of borstal training would be appropriate.
When I looked at the choice the courts have to make between the sentence of detention in a young offenders centre and borstal training I came to the conclusion that there was little justification for keeping borstal as a separate sentence.
The factors that led me to take this view were, first, that both sentences apply to young people in a broadly similar age group and provide for a broadly similar programme of activities. Thus, the regime in the young offenders centre is disciplined and brisk, with an emphasis on physical exercise plus remedial education and training, and is therefore virtually indistinguishable from what goes on in borstal. Indeed, the modern buildings at the young offenders centre have allowed the regime there to combine the best elements of the more traditional borstal practice with some additional features arising from improved facilities.
The second factor is financial. Thus, as well as rationalising the present

sentencing powers of the courts, the flexibility that this change will bring in our use of prison accommodation in Northern Ireland will enable a more cost-effective use to be made of the available facilities.
Thirdly, there is no evidence that the element of indeterminacy in borstal training has been justified by results. The impression that borstal is particularly effective in reforming young offenders is, alas, not borne out by our figures on reconvictions. It is right that a young offender should know when he can expect to be released, given good behaviour.
The penal principles on which the order is based are exactly those that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, outlined recently when he addressed a meeting of magistrates about Government proposals for young adult offenders in England and Wales. These were that the power to decide the appropriate length of sentence should rest with the courts and that our penal establishments should be used in the most constructive and effective way. In this sense there is really no difference in approach between the different parts of the United Kingdom.
In detail, the order provides that at the date of abolition the present borstal institution will become a young offenders centre, and trainees serving a sentence of borstal training will be deemed to be serving a two-year sentence of detention in a young offenders centre, running from the date when they were sentenced to borstal training. Remission will apply to these sentences of detention, and as this is at the rate of 50 per cent. some youngsters will be released immediately. For those young offenders who were responding well to the borstal regime that is being superseded and who would have earned early borstal release—earlier than half the notional two-year sentence—the Secretary of State will have powers of discretionary release for a transitional period.
The order also provides that there will be no statutory supervision on release. However, I agree that there are benefits that result from voluntary after care, and the probation service will offer help and advice on a voluntary basis to all young offenders on release.
Finally, the order amends certain Acts so that juveniles who cannot be adequately contained within training


schools may be transferred to a young offenders centre instead of to a borstal institution as at present.
The Criminal Justice and Armed Forces (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980—which, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have allowed us to take at the same time—will provide amendments to the Criminal Justice Act 1961, the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957, so that young offenders may be transferred between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Where the transfer is from a borstal in Great Britain to Northern Ireland, the young offender will serve in the young offenders centre a determinate sentence with a maximum of two years from the date of sentence.
Transfers from Northern Ireland will be to young offenders institutes in Scotland or to a young prisoners centre in England and Wales, and the sentences served in those cases will be for the same maximum period as imposed by the court in Northern Ireland from the date of sentence. The rules regarding remission and other conditions of service will be those of the jurisdiction receiving the young offender.
I believe that the provisions that I have outlined will be for the benefit of the whole of the community in Northern Ireland, including those convicted as offenders there.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Together with a number of colleagues, I visited the centre at Hydebank to which the Minister referred. We were extremely impressed by the staff, the buildings and the work that was done at Hydebank. If such places have to exist—as they do—we could find no fault with the way in which that establishment was run. We were very impressed.
Anyone who visits that centre must naturally ask how the young offenders of the two communities get on with each other. The answer to that question, as I understood it from all members of staff, was that after a very short initial period there was virtually no trouble.
I do not wish to abuse the scope of the order, but there is a lesson to be learnt—a lesson to which some hon. Members have referred in previous

speeches on Northern Ireland affairs. If potentially hard youngsters at Hydebank can see the differences of the divide after a short time, why cannot that happen to a greater extent outside? Some hon. Members begin to wonder what on earth 11 years of trouble will do to a generation that has known little else. Youngsters are growing up, having known nothing but conflict. In North Antrim there is an unemployment rate of 15 per cent. which is probably higher among young people, and in Cookstown and Strabane I dread to think what a 40 per cent. unemployment rate among school leavers will do. There is a potential cauldron.
How can we be constructive? The Minister will not be surprised if once again some hon. Members say that the nettle must be grasped on the basis of experience of Hydebank and elsewhere and that some sort of programme should be put forward for the integration of pupils at school, on the old basis that those who have gone to school with each other tend not to fight each other. That is the lesson that I learnt at Hydebank. I do not presume to speak for my colleagues. They must speak for themselves. I gained a strong impression that, unpopular though it may be—I understand the 1918 Act, and because of personal circumstances I know what I am saying—the time has come when this nettle must be grasped.
Although I do not doubt that there will be great resistance from the Roman Catholic Church, after 11 years some people are entitled to ask what it has proposed to alleviate the situation. Harold Macmillan said that in British politics there are three groups that wise politicians should not take on—the Brigade of Guards, the National Union of Mineworkers and the Roman Catholic Church.
We have been in this mess for over a decade. I say "we", because it affects all of us in Britain. I speak as one who has never thought of the so-called Ulster problem as an Irish problem. It is a problem of Great Britain. It affects all of us. That is why some of us spend so much time in these debates. Experience at Hydebank, where, if anywhere, one would imagine there would be the troubles of the divide, has shown that it can be done if people start sufficiently young.
Doubtless there will be great resistance. It may be said "You are urging the Government to do something that possibly the Labour Government should have done'. Some of us gently asked them to do it. The gentle requests are mounting into a demand.
I repeat in one sentence what I said in the previous debate. There should be no misunderstanding by Northern Ireland Members that the patience of those on this side of the water, with our own cascade of problems—unemployment and many other matters—is wearing very thin. There is a developing mood:
A plague o' both your houses!
Regardless of the merits of the case, we shall find an overwhelming demand by Opposition Members to take a different view on Northern Ireland. At the Wembley conference of the Labour Party—it is easy to sneer at this or that proposal by the national executive—when Northern Ireland was mentioned, there was a spontaneous, unartificial roar of approval for policies that so far have not been the policies of the Opposition Front Bench. This came from a growing impatience not of extremists, not of people who were grinding some political axe, but of many people who have not taken much of a view so far, that after 11 years, with insurance rates going up, those pictures night after night on television, this endless business of the Birtish Army going back for tour after tour, explaining to mothers and fathers in villages why their sons have died in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is well outside the terms of the order. I did not stop him, but he must now draw his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Dalyell: I do not wish to go too wide of the order. I hope that there is no misunderstanding of the power of feeling about this matter. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) may smile, but those who have sown a whirlwind may reap a great deal of trouble. Those who call themselves Unionists and say that above all other things they are concerned about the Union had better understand that it ill-behoves them to challenge the views of the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On education.

Mr. Dalyell: On education and on other matters. We have been on this subject before. I do not want to stray out of order. Strong feelings are welling up. and I am speaking for many others who are voicing these thoughts.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Time is short. Therefore, I shall not be tempted to follow too closely the argument put forward by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). But he managed to introduce into two debates a quite foreign matter, and we in the Unionist family are growing tired of it.
First, Northern Ireland's economic situation is at times regarded as unique, which it is not. Secondly, we are treated to the thought that the problem in Northern Ireland is somehow of the making of the Ulster people right across the Province, when much of the security problem referred to by the hon. Gentleman is the result of the ineptitude of a number of Governments and of the House. It will not do to introduce into these debates that type of foreign matter. The hon. Gentleman may have his view on the desirability of the United Kingdom's continued involvement in Northern Ireland, but that is foreign to the matters that we are now debating.
Lest the hon. Gentleman gets the wrong impression, I say at the outset that we appreciate the numerous visits that he and his colleagues make to Ulster. We welcome the attempts that he and others have made to acquaint themselves with the situation in Northern Ireland in respect of matters that come within the remit of these orders. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand my first comments. We appreciate the effort that has been made to understand the problems and to try to make constructive comments.
We in the Official Unionist Party welcome the order. We appreciate the need for it, and its value. Any attempt to simplify and to render more logical the complicated, complex, conflicting and counter-productive legislation that existed heretofore on young offenders is to be welcomed, and we welcome it tonight.
I have a strong word of censure. The order should not have been introduced before the House had the opportunity to consider the Black report in detail. I


think that the Minister will accept that the order impinges upon the report. One illustration of overlap is the treatment of 17-year olds, who are involved in the training schools in schedule 2, in borstal training and the young offenders centre. There is at least that degree of overlap. There is a greater impingement upon the Black report by the order than meets the eye on first reading. I shall address most of my comments to the important features of the report, which we should have debated before we turned our attention to the order. The two are undoubtedly inextricably bound together.
On 16 June the Northern Ireland civil servants met members of the trade union groups. I think that members of NUPE and the NAS were present. They stated clearly to the trade unionists that the eighth chapter of the Black report would be implemented by January 1980. There was no attempt to involve the training school staff or board of management either from Rathgael, St. Patrick's or Middletown. However a statement was made that was a fait accompli. It was stated that the section dealing with the probation package would be implemented in January 1980.
It is the more serious because we, as Members of Parliament, have not had the opportunity of considering that section or any other part of the Black report in the House. When the civil servants told the trade unionists that they were going ahead with the chapter and that the probation package was to be the essence of legislation it was a slight on Members of Parliament in Northern Ireland.
We are unhappy with much of the Black report, including chapter 8. It is not enough to inform trade unionists that certain actions will be taken without first having debated the consequences of those actions in the House and without first involving the other professional bodies, the staff, and the boards of management of the training schools.
I hope that the Minister will tell us why a civil servant took it upon himself to make that statement at the meeting on 16 June 1980. We deplore such an approach to an important subject. I hope that the Minister will confirm that nothing has become fait accompli. In addition, I hope that he will assure us

that the House will have an opportunity to debate the Northern Ireland Office's proposals and to change them, if that is the mood and feeling of the House.
I wish to deal with the philosophy of the Black report and the difficulties involved. The Black report is both too weak and too strong. It is too weak, because the so-called welfare approach demands that the community should accept responsibility for at least 240 persistent offenders. That approach will not work. Given England's experience as a result of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, it has little chance of working. There is insufficient manpower available, and there are insufficient ideas and resources within the community.
Throughout the Black report there is a clash between the welfare approach and the judicial approach. Black seems to have come down in favour of the welfare approach, but in a way that augurs ill for the 240 persistent young offenders. There is a dubious division in the Black report about the categorisation of offenders. The report states that there are infrequent minor offenders, and persistent and serious offenders. By the former, the report means truants, and so on. Such children probably make up one-quarter of those attending training schools in Northern Ireland. By the latter, the report means those who continue with a particular form of rebellion, or who continue to react against their environment.
The division of the courts envisaged in the report will have dubious consequences. Difficulty will arise in deciding what constitutes a minor or serious offence. In one family, the environment may make one child react in a particular way. For example, he may refuse to go to school. Another child in the family who is exposed to exactly the same conditions may want to draw attention to himself and his needs by persistently doing something that is regarded as more serious. Different treatments will be required in different contexts. Two such young people are the result of a common environment although they react in different ways. It is important to anticipate the dangers.
Black is too weak in suggesting that 240 persistent—I do not use the word "serious"—offenders should be put back in their home environment. That does not seem to be wise. If such young


people are returned to the environment that caused them to be what they are and that reduced them to commit the offending behaviour, what are the chances of radical change?
Where shall we find the probation officers to deal with the 240 persistent young offenders? The probation staff already has grave difficulty in coping with the young people under care. One young person who was brought before the court recently was asked "Who is your probation officer?" The young fellow did not know—not because he was stupid but because his probation officer was not able to contact him often and was taken off the case to do a more important job. The young fellow did not know under whose care he had been placed.
If many extra probation officers are recruited they will be unskilled at the outset. The skilled, experienced officers will be given the administrative and technical jobs and the unskilled officers will be exposed to the field work. That does not augur well for the 240 persistent young offenders.
Difficulties have been experienced with the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. The difficulty is illustrated in the conflict between social workers and magistrates. It began with the idea that approved schools were not necessary. The idea was to place children with social workers and not put them in residential care. Rather than risk sending the children to the social workers who were not able to cope, the magistrates began to put them into residential care. There was a pretence that the approved schools were not playing a part, but the magistates were depending on them. That will be experienced in Northern Ireland if we persist in the idea of returning the 240 or more young people to their environments, hoping that sufficient numbers of probation officers will suddenly emerge and that they will be of such calibre as to be able to cope with young people who persistently offend.
Such young people need an environment that is different from that which helped to create the problem. That environment can be provided by training schools which are open and flexible and where educational possibilities and compassion combine with authority. The

admission by the probation staff and social workers that there is need for residential homes leads me to believe that we should not dispense with the training schools at this juncture.
I am concerned that the philosophy is too strong. A 120-bed mixed sex, interdenominational custodial unit is proposed in the Black report. It is argued that there is nothing like it in the remainder of the United Kingdom or Southern Ireland. I question the latter contention. It is an experiment, and therein lies its weakness. Northern Ireland suffers from unprecedented delinquency, vandalism and terrorism, and it is no place for an experiment. We need tried and tested schemes. It is right to mix denominations in State schools, but I doubt whether we should commence the process in a custodial unit.
The age of criminal responsibility has not changed. The unit will therefore have to cover the age range from 10 to 17. The secure units in the remainder of the United Kingdom are on a much smaller scale, usually for less than 40 young people. The length of stay, usually two to three years, is determined by the staff and not by court order. I question whether the proposed system of sentencing is appropriate to juvenile offenders. Will the young people regard themselves as doing time? How often could a young person be released and return to the unit between the age of 11 or 12 and 17?
Short-term sentencing will rule out the concept of care. It invites abuse from those who wish to be classed as offenders in order to receive a short, determinate sentence. It is doubtful whether training school programmes could be applied. We are talking of short, sharp, shock treatment. It cannot be a lengthy stay. Where will the educational aspects of rehabilitation come in? Where is the rapport of rehabilitation and the flexibility of approach? There will not be time to build up the empathy that is required for rehabilitation.
I do not believe that the custodial unit, which I would call a child's prison, is what we need in Northern Ireland at present. The only similar experiment is in the South of Ireland, which has a unit for about 90 young people and which holds no more than 24 young people at present. There have been three riots since its inception, and the remainder of the


accommodation is taken up by wardens trained to cope with riots. It costs about £ 24,000 per young person in the unit, which is a colossal sum. I do not believe that the experiment in the South gives us much hope that the one we are discussing will be any better.
It is of paramount importance that we consider the difference between the serious and the persistent offender. About one-quarter of the inmates of training schools in Northern Ireland are reckoned to be non-offenders, or guilty of contraventions rather than crimes. The remaining three-quarters—about 240—are persistent offenders, though they are not necessarily serious or depraved. Yet under the terms of the Black report they will all be eligible for the custodial unit. The difference between "persistent" and "serious" has not been adequately defined.
Few in the training schools can be defined as depraved or serious offenders, but many are classed as persistent offenders and they could all be eligible as inmates of the new custodial unit.
We require a mix of the welfare and the judicial approaches. There is compatible ground. We need an emphasis on care by the probation service, with a residential recommendation in the case of many persistent offenders. The recommendation would relate to the training schools and not to the custodial unit.
There could be an approach involving the social workers, probation officers and training schools working in co-operation and not in isolation. The Black report would result in the probation service trying to take on all the responsibility, because that had been done in the past by the training schools. The training school, the probation service and the social worker all have a place, but there must be a co-ordinated approach by all three.
Of course there is a need to provide for the small number of serious or depraved offenders. I believe that the borstal institution is the place for them. The custodial unit is not the way forward, and I hope that the House will be given every opportunity to look closely at the proposal before it becomes law.
I turn to the financial implications. How much was spent on the inner sanctum of the borstal institution that was

refurbished, certainly not more than two years ago? I have a figure of £ 1 million. Can the Minister confirm that? Having spent £ 1 million on the institution two years ago, we are not going to use it.
The young offenders centre has accommodation for about 300, though there are only about 150 young people there at present. We are dealing with a different age group in the main, though there is an overlap of 17-year-olds. We cannot fill the places in the YOC, even with some of the 17-year-olds who could go to training schools. What is the point of creating a new custodial unit? Why do we not use the existing system of the YOC and the training schools, with the borstal being used for the depraved or serious young offenders?
No professional body outside the probation package has recommended a change in the training school set-up. Can the Minister tell me whether the Association of Lay Magistrates and Juvenile Court Magistrates recommended a change? Did the resident magistrates recommend it? Did the Association of Directors of Social Services recommend it? Which professional group or body has recommended a change in the function and role of the training school to a welfare, probation service orientated approach?
It is conceded by those who espouse the welfare approach that to keep a child in preventive care in the community is as expensive as keeping a child in residential care. Another factor is the expense of appointing extra probation staff. Where are they to be found? When found, where is the money to pay them? Two separate courts have to be created for the contraveners, as opposed to the serious offenders. All these matters have implications in terms of expenditure.
I ask the Minister not to accept an approach as weak as Black in some respects but as judicial and over-strong in others. We recognise the tremendous work of the probation service. We applaud the service. I know many of those involved in its work. I am not criticising the probation service in making my comments on the Black report, but I ask the Minister to take on board all the reports by the professional bodies and not simply to lean heavily on one report from the probation service.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) began by welcoming the order on his own behalf and on behalf of the Official Unionist Party. The hon. Gentleman then read the brief kindly supplied to him by Rathgael and all the arguments were against it.

Mr. Bradford: That is not true.

Mr. Kilfedder: I disagree with the order. I hope to explain why I take that view. I do not intend to read the Rathgael brief, not even in a non-clerical voice. I would only say to the Minister that all those intimately involved in dealing with juvenile delinquency in Northern Ireland are concerned about the manner in which the order has been introduced in the House.
There should have been a debate on the Black report. It would then have become clear to hon. Members that the Black committee was lop-sided. It lacked membership that would have provided a point of view that has not been taken into account. The Minister would perform a great service to the community and those dealing with juvenile delinquents in Northern Ireland if he were to withdraw the order.

Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. I apologise for doing so. I should like to reassure him about the inter-relationship of the Black report and the order we are discussing. The report covers only the age range up to 17. The order is concerned with those aged over 17. Thus, the report and the order take into account different groups of youngsters. There will be ample time, I am sure, to debate the Black report before any irrevocable decisions are taken.

Mr. Kildfedder: I gave way readily to the Minister because he is always courteous in giving way to hon. Members. There is no doubt that the Black report has coloured the mind of the Minister in regard to the introduction of the order.
The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) earlier castigated the people of Northern Ireland, saying that England, Wales and Scotland were sick of the Ulster people and the problems in Northern Ireland. He is unfair on the great majority of Ulster people, no matter

what their religion may be. The majority of Protestants and Roman Catholics are fighting for a decent way of life, fighting for the preservation of law and order. They are not responsible for the continuation of the conflict. I do not think that it was right for the hon. Gentleman to castigate people who have for 11 long years not responded to some terrible provocation.
In case the hon. Gentleman thinks that crime is the monopoly of the Ulster people, perhaps he will bear in mind the figures that have been given frequently in regard to crime rates in England, Scotland and Wales. The crime rate in England is proportionately far in advance—

Mr. Dalyell: And in Scotland, too.

Mr. Kilfedder: —of the crime rate in Northern Ireland. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman recognises that.
Throughout the United Kingdom juvenile crime is on the increase. The last figures that I was able to get were for 1976. Those for England and Wales show that one-third of detected robberies, half the detected burglaries and a quarter of detected thefts were committed by young people under the age of 17. I have no doubt that those proportions have now increased. It is appalling that so many young people are caught up in crime. This is common throughout the world, and not only the United Kingdom. It is not surprising that Northern Ireland should be no exception to that national and international trend.
Sadly, in Ulster children and young people have the added difficulty of growing up against a background of obscene and violent terrorism. Naturally I admire, as I think every hon. Member would admire, those youngsters who, despite everything, can lead exemplary lives in the Province today. No tribute to them can be too glowing.
However, I do not reject those young people who have fallen into trouble in Northern Ireland. They deserve the sympathy and support of the Ulster community. A great many of them will grow out of their present delinquency and become good citizens. I am certain that in a few years they will put their delinquency behind them. What they need now is guidance and support. I am not satisfied that what is proposed in the


order is the best arrangement that can be made for dealing with offenders in Northern Ireland.
That is why I resent the way in which some self-appointed experts in the treatment of juvenile crime pontificate in Northern Ireland on the immorality or the lawlessness of the present young generation, without any proper understanding of the complexity of the subject and what those young people have to bear, the pressures to which they are subjected. The subject of the treatment of young offenders is so vast that it cannot be dealt with adequately in this debate at 1.40 am. This is not the time and place to deal with a subject so serious and important as this.
Therefore, I urge the Government to withhold the order, which seeks to experiment in Northern Ireland, where the existing system, while not perfect—as most people will recognise—is better than what is proposed. If we are to replace the present system, everyone should be reasonably satisfied that the new system will be to the benefit of young people who are caught up in crime.
Young people engage in criminal behaviour, whether in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, for many and conflicting reasons. Some are prompted to crime by temptation or example which is often projected from the television or cinema screen or by the lifestyle of their pop group heroes. Other young people get involved in crime because of problems that arise at school or at home in the family or elsewhere in the community. The question is how does one deal with delinquents, because the great majority of them will, eventually, given the right guidance and help, lead perfectly normal lives and become good and perhaps valuable citizens.
Some people advocate punishment, discipline and strict custodial care. The Home Secretary advocates the short, sharp shock treatment. He is wrong in emphasising that approach. No doubt it is good for some youngsters, but I do not believe that it provides the answer for all young people who get involved in trouble. There are some who advocate strict custodial care where certain standards—usually of the person in authority—will be instilled into the young offender without any recognition that per-

haps that young offender needs to be given standards that he will appreciate and be glad to follow—standards of which many in the community will be glad to approve.
Others adopt a social welfare approach and urge that delinquency is a symptom of the problems to which the offender is subjected in his environment. They advocate social and psychological treatment by social workers, probation officers and other professional people. It is possible that they may be right on many occasions. But one cannot adopt a simplistic approach, whichever of those two schools one supports.
Whichever system is adopted in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, it must recognise that every young person who gets involved in crime is an individual and needs special attention. The ideal arrangement in Northern Ireland is to have the social worker or probation officer immediately behind the young offender. Of course, that is impossible, so we have to work for the closest possible alternative, and that is to make sure that each person who has been involved in trouble is given expert guidance.
I have no doubt that the proposed abolition of borstal training in Northern Ireland is due to the low standard of borstals in England and Wales. It is a long time since I practised at the Bar in London, but even then borstal was not regarded too highly, and it has further deteriorated in the intervening years. The Millisle borstal has been singularly effective. The Minister criticised the borstal results, but I think that he is unfair to the work of those involved in the Woburn borstal. The figures of those who have been through the borstal compare more than favourably with those who have been through borstals in England and Wales.
A film is currently on release in Northern Ireland—it has been shown in England—called "Scum". I have only heard of what is in it, but it is supposed to portray brutal activities in borstals in England. The House should realise that the borstal at Millisle has done valuable work in helping to rehabilitate youngsters sent there. No doubt the trouble with borstals in England is that they are overcrowded, the staff are unable to cope with the inmates, and the standards have fallen. The


question asked by people in the borstals at Millisle and Rathgael is "Why is the experiment being introduced in Northern Ireland when so many people disagree with it?" Surely it is due to the lack of knowledge by senior civil servants of borstal training. They do not know very much. They have not communicated with the people in the Millisle borstal, and they have not consulted the staff. The existence of the young offenders centre, which was built at Hydebank at a cost of £ 7 million to meet a need that did not exist, prompted the embarrassed civil servants who had demanded that centre to justify the squandering of public money. That must be the true reason. Having forced through Hyde-bank against the wishes of local people, the civil servants and the Government must now justify its existence.
Instead of a period of borstal training, juvenile offenders will receive a fixed prison sentence. The courts will have no option between a training school and a prison. I do not believe that proper consideration has been given to the stigma of a prison sentence. It is argued that boys prefer a fixed term even though it is a prison sentence. I do not know about the wishes of potential delinquents, but experience has shown that an indeterminate sentence creates the most important incentive for a youngster receiving custodial treatment. The work of rehabilitation carried on at Millisle, Rathgael and Whiteabbey has demonstrated the value of indeterminate sentences which enable the care programme to be geared to the needs of the individual child.
I have spoken to the staff at Rathgael training school which has done such good work for youngsters over a great many years. It is right to pay tribute to their dedicated work, as well as to the work of the staff at the Millisle borstal. Perhaps the Minister will say what will happen to that staff. The Rathgael staff share the aim of reducing the number of children in care, and of enabling children who might otherwise be taken into care to mature and come to terms with life as far as possible in their own communities. If that is to happen successfully, professionals in the areas of education, social and fieldwork must be recruited in large numbers and trained. Has the Minister estimated the number required for that work? Has he estimated the total cost

involved? How long will it take before an adequate staff is trained?
With regard to the proposals for care and offence juvenile courts, how many new magistrates will be recruited to the juvenile benches? Is the Minister satisfied that there is an adequate number of trained and sensitive persons available for that work?
Finally, what does the Minister suggest where a juvenile offender is in court because of problems in the family? How will the new system help in that situation?
I ask the Minister to bear in mind the valuable service provided by Rathgael. It acts as a remand home; it acts as an assessment centre and as a place of safety; and it has a traditional role in dealing with offenders in a residential setting. I urge the Minister to review the whole situation and reconsider his approach to it and the introduction of this order.

Mr. Gerard Fitt: I propose to make the shortest speech that I have ever made in the House or ever intend to make.
I had not suspected that this order would be in any way controversial, which I suppose only goes to show my ignorance of the subject being debated. I know that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has a constituency interest, but on looking at the order and seeing that it would abolish borstal training as such I regarded it as something of an advance, because it will take the term "borstal" out of the vocabulary. An awful stigma is attached to the word, and any youngster who is unfortunate enough to have undergone borstal training carries that stigma with him for the rest of his life. I am delighted that the term is to be taken out of use.
Last week I received written representations from some of the prison authorities. I think that they were protesting against the changes envisaged in the order. I wonder whether the Minister has had any meetings with those people, and whether their protests were valid. Did the Minister have any discussions with them before embarking on the new system? Is he satisfied that there will be no redundancies? Are there adequate facilities to cater for the change that is envisaged?
I ought to say a few words to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I think that he is right to say—and he said with a good deal of honesty what others have not said on the Floor of the House—that a good deal of frustration is building up in the House and in the United Kingdom over what is happening in Northern Ireland. I think that people would be foolish to ignore what has been said by my hon. Friend.
Having said that, I must go on to say that I feel that my hon. Friend has taken a simplistic view of what he saw at Hyde-bank training centre. I do not think that that is the place to choose to measure whether community relations can be bettered in Northern Ireland. The reasons for the troubles in Northern Ireland are extremely complex. They are all about the existence of the State; whether one wants to remain within the United Kingdom; whether one wants to abolish the border; whether one wants to become a citizen of the Republic or of any united Ireland.
It is not only religious differences that have caused the present turmoil and tragedy in Northern Ireland. Many young people of the same age as borstal detainees are in Long Kesh. They come from the Protestant side and from the Catholic side, having been convicted of scheduled terrorist offences. It was not religious motivation that brought them into conflict with the other side. It was due to a complex set of reasons, and even if integrated education were introduced tomorrow we should still have the awful problem of Ireland's history—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman heard me say to another hon. Member that we were not dealing with that aspect of Northern Ireland. We are dealing solely with the order relating to borstal and whether it should be approved. I know that the hon. Gentleman was seeking to answer a point that had been made. I should have stopped him earlier, but I hope that he will not persist with his argument, because it is out of order.

Mr. Fitt: I was relating my remarks to Hydebank, which is an educational institution. My hon. Friend was right to say what he did.
Finally, I say to my hon. Friend with a great deal of sincerity that, in his comments about Northern Ireland and the situation that has prevailed there over the past five years, he gave the impression that he thought that some of the political leaders had revelled or relished in the situation that obtained there. I can only say that, if 11 years have seemed to be a long time on this side of the Irish Sea, to me it has been an absolute eternity; and the sooner we bring the troubles to an end the happier I shall be.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I did not intend to speak in this debate, but some remarks that have been made in the debate deserve to be answered by a Member representing a Northern Ireland constituency. I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), but he sat down before I could make my intervention. I assure him that I was not smiling at what he was saying. I was smiling at what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were saying in calling the hon. Gentleman to order. I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) that on other occasions you had been just as quick to call my hon. Friend and myself to order when we had strayed beyond the rules of order.
I believe that what the hon. Member for West Lothian said was said with great sincerity and that he was reflecting what has been said and felt on this side of the water. However, I say to him that the people of Northern Ireland have not asked that soldiers from this side of the water should bear the heat and burden of the day. For many years, the people of Northern Ireland and the Ulster Special Constabulary lost lives; funerals had to be attended, and so on. We have never said to anyone on this side of the water "Come and fight our battles for us and we will wash our hands of it."
I assure the House tonight that the people of Northern Ireland do not count anyone who has lost his life from this side of the water as someone to be forgotten. I have seen letters written by mothers in Northern Ireland to mothers on this side of the water. They feel just as deeply about what is happening. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will keep that in mind and take on board the


fact that we appreciate what is happening, but we did not ask the House to do what it did.
As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) has rightly said, when I was a lone figure in this House I warned successive Governments that, if they put their hands to certain actions, there would be a sorry reaping. There has been that sorry reaping.
I am sure the Minister has listened carefully to the hon. Members for Belfast, South and for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). It would have been far better, before the order was laid, if there had been a thorough discussion of the Black report. Although the report and the order deal with different age groups, they interlock. We should have a thorough discussion of this matter before we proceed along these lines.
In regard to integration of people at Hydebank, the House should remember that there is no such thing in Northern Ireland as a twofold religious system of education. There is a Roman Catholic system of education and the State system. There are few independent Protestant schools. There is no large Protestant school system today. I have always held the view that the State system should be a fully integrated system and that parents should be encouraged to send their children to that particular school of education. But if for religious reasons and for strongly held convictions people want to have religious schools in which their own principles may be taught, they should not be banned from having them but they should pay for them and look after them. That position cannot at present be achieved in Northern Ireland because of the past. It is not as easy as some hon. Members may think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has indicated that I have often had to intervene to call him to order. When any hon. Gentleman gets outside the rules of order, every other hon. Member then wants to try to answer what has been said. We are not now dealing with general education. We are dealing with borstals and with the criminal aspect.

Rev. Ian Paisley: May I draw your attention, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to the fact that the replacement for the borstal

institution is Hydebank, which is an integrated centre. It is from that standpoint that I have been seeking to put my argument.
It might be very popular among Unionist people if we were to say "Take all grants from Roman Catholic schools and face up to what is involved", but in my opinion that would be a recipe for far greater turmoil in the Province. We have to look at the position realistically. My views on the subject are very well known. When hon. Members express views about taking on the Roman Catholic Church, again my views are well known in this House. We should try to keep the matter in perspective. I would rather see a good debate on the Black report and all that flows from it and then after that have the laying of orders. The order that we are now discussing is completely out of context and has been drawn up before we have had the opportunity to deal with these other matters.

Mr. Brynmor John: The orders are unexceptionable and deserve to be passed, but there is a wider truth in what most hon. Members have said. It is correct to say that we are fatally ambiguous in our approach to young people, whether we want to punish them or to try to reform them. It is surely when people are young that they are most capable of redemption or of turning away from a life of crime.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) decries experiments and says that what we need is a tried and trusted system. The truth is that in dealing with young offenders we have no system that is tried and trusted. All systems save the untried and largely un-financed provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 have proved to be unworkable. The approved school system was a total failure by reason of the fact that people kept returning to the penal system as a result of having been in approved schools. They certainly failed in their reformative effort.

Mr. Bradford: Not the training schools in Northern Ireland.

Mr. John: That would probably be very difficult to assess. Many of these results are difficult to assess.
I echo the call for a general debate on the Black report. The Minister of State, Home Office—who does the job that I used to do—made a speech in which he said that the courts would henceforth fix the disposition of young offenders. We ought to discuss the matter before such a priori assumptions—which really border on the nonsense about the short, sharp shock—are put into operation. There is an optimum time for detention, and when that time is exceeded the offender is hardened rather than redeemed. The magistrates who dispose of young offenders are very largely concerned to punish rather than to avoid a recurrence of the young offenders' crimes. They may well fill the custodial accommodation that is available with people whom they wish to punish, rather than with the most suitable people for such treatment. There is a difference. Therefore, the suggestion that the length of the sentence should be left to assessing authorities rather than to magistrates is powerful, and cannot be displaced by mere attempts to give back to the magistrates powers that they had in the nineteenth century.

Mr. Alison: I shall do my best, in a short time, to cover the points that have been raised.
On behalf of the Government and on behalf of the Province, may I say that we appreciate the compliments paid by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the young offenders centre at Hydebank, and we echo the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). We are pleased that the hon. Member for West Lothian finds time to visit the Province in such a constructive frame of mind. He is right about the effect of penal establishments in the Province, not least the young offenders centre at Hydebank, in integrating the communities. I thought for a moment that he would prove too much by demonstrating that result. One's mind is led inexorably to the implications of that way of solving problems in Northern Ireland. I am not sure that it is entirely practicable, but it is true that that is one way of sinking differences.
I remind the hon. Member for Belfast, South at the outset, because I dare not follow him down the full avenue of debate into which he launched us by his

reference to the Black report, that this order is strictly related to youngsters over the age of 17, and the Black report is exclusively concerned with youngsters under the age of 17. So there is an overlap only in a limited sense. I must ask the hon. Gentleman's indulgence in not following him on a general debate on the Black report on this occasion, save only to make a few points in that context.
I take as the first hook on which to hang a "Black" comment his query about the trade union meeting with probation officers. The meeting that took place in June this year dealt with the proposals concerning the probation service. It was said at that meeting that the proposals contained in the Black report concerning the probation service could be published in January 1981, on the lines recommended by Black and accepted in principle by the Government. But, before any of the Black report recommendations can be implemented, legislation will be required. Many hon. Members will have an opportunity, as and when we implement the Black proposals, to debate them in the House. I hope that the opportunity will be seized to discuss the Black proposals informally in the Northern Ireland Committee long before legislation is brought forward. Nothing will be done in a hurry. The implementation of the proposals in the Black report will take place over a number of years, and will involve a transfer of resources primarily in the long run from residential settings to field work. That does not necessarily imply that there will be a loss of jobs, but simply a shift in emphasis.
I said that I could not be too deeply drawn into Black because there will have to be legislation. There is not an overlap between the order and the Black recommendations. I hope that we shall have an opportunity in the Northern Ireland Committee to discuss the matter, but I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is an unsatisfactory position vis-à-vis some of the youngsters. In present circumstances, young offenders are often punished with long custodial sentences in training schools when the offences do not warrant such severity, but the courts simply feel that home conditions are unfavourable. Looking at the matter from the point of view of the


youngster, who should be the primary consideration, the situation results in his being taken away from home for a long residential indeterminate spell. It is by no means certain that this is the fairest or best way of dealing with such youngsters.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South also mentioned the cost aspect. The cost of the original Millisle borstal was approximately £ 1 million. But the changes envisaged in the order will produce a more economic use of facilities and a saving of about £ 1.3 million over two years. That is one reason why, in the light of what I said about the future possibility of discussing the Black report and having legislation on it, I am able to assure the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that we are justified in bringing forward the order on the older age group because there will be economic benefits in the Province apart from the penal improvements which we think will flow from it.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) made a helpful speech about the way in which many youngsters in the Province, where the incidence of crime is undoubtedly high, make a recovery and take advantage of the facilities provided in the borstals. But, in the context of his criticisms of the order, I remind him that there will be no deterioration in the facilities available as a result of the order. The YOC at Hydebank exists. As soon as the order is implemented, the Millisle borstal will continue to be a penal establishment offering the same facilities. It will be called a young offenders centre instead of a borstal. There will be no detriment to youngsters in being sent to a young offenders centre—they are not being sent to prison; there is a distinction between a YOC and a borstal—rather than to a borstal. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pointed out, there may be some advantage in a youngster being referred to such a place because of the bad name that borstal has.
That leads me to comment briefly on what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, South about the effectiveness of borstal. I pay the fullest possible tribute to the staff at Millisle in dealing with the problems of those committed there. But 74 per cent. of borstal trainees are recommitted within two years. That is similar

to the reconviction rate for England and Wales. Indeed, if anything, it is marginally higher. This is no reflection on the staff of the borstal; rather, it is a reflection on the youngsters and the trouble into which they get in the Province.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister taking into account those who go to closed units?

Mr. Alison: Yes.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West wanted to know whether, in the context of the order, we had proper consultations. The answer is an unequivocal "Yes". My Department has consulted the prison officers on a number of occasions from at least July last year to this month. There will be no redundancies of prison officers as a result of the order.
The points made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North have been broadly covered by my pointing out the difference between the Black implications and what we are doing tonight. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's misgivings on the Black report will find expression when we come either to legislation or perhaps to a discussion in the Northern Ireland Committee.
I noted the remarks of the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). I echo his expression of the current tendency for there to be ambiguity in our approach to reform or punishment. The fact that the two aspects tend to be blurred often results in those in the 17- to 21-year age group serving indeterminate sentences. That sometimes results in youngsters with a genuine welfare background finding themselves serving a longish indeterminate detention in a borstal, for example, for a misdemeanour, crime or act of delinquency which if they had been over 21 years would have probably resulted in a prison sentence of no more than six months. However, they probably end up spending 12 or even 18 months in borstal. It will be to the benefit of the community and to those who are the subjects of the various orders if the proposed change is made.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3 July, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND ARMED FORCES)

Resolved,

That the draft Criminal Justice and Armed Forces (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3rd July, be approved.—[Mr. Alison.]

BOLTONS SUPERHEATER AND PIPE WORKS LIMITED

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mather.]

Mr. Tom McNally: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister, for staying so late, following such an important debate on the affairs of Northern Ireland. The lateness of the hour does not dim my anger and indignation at the matter that I wish to raise.
I am sure that many hon. Members when reading the Order Paper thought that I was merely raising yet another example of a factory closure, one of a litany that has littered the Order Paper over the past 12 or 15 months. Even if that were so, I should make no apology for doing so.
I shall raise a case that goes far beyond the fate of a single firm and the future of about 150 men and their families. We on this side of the House are often accused by our opponents of objecting to a form of capitalism that no longer exists, of fighting will-o'-the-wisps and creating capitalist bogeymen to frighten our supporters. Boltons Superheater and Pipe Works Limited did until a few weeks ago exist, and the behaviour of those entrusted with its future indicates that Parliament still needs to be vigilant about the rights of workers and taxpayers when the market forces, so beloved of the Secretary of State for Industry, are at work.
Before going into the details of the case it might be appropriate to state the general economic and industrial background. Stockport is a high-skill, high technology industrial town. It long ago made the adjustment to industries of the future which Ministers claim is the aim of their policy for the economy as a whole. Yet on Tuesday the roll call of the un-

employed in Stockport reached over 5,500. The local district secretary of the AUEW, Mr. Bernard Regan, told me yesterday that redundancy notices were coming through his door like confetti. He estimated that in the past year in Stockport about 2,200 redundancies have been declared in the engineering industry alone.
The Minister might like to note some of the names of more than a score of companies that have declared redundancies in that period in Stockport. These include Mirlees Blackstone Ltd., diesel engineers, Simon Container Machinery Ltd., Ferodo Ltd., Fairey Engineering, Abbey Electronics and Mauldeth Engineering.
I hope that the Minister is getting the flavour of what is happening in Stockport and other centres of high skill. These are not firms of the past but firms of the future. Today I am informed that the James Mills steelworks, part of the private section, is in trouble. This is not happening because of some act of God. Time after time surveys have shown the culprits: high rates of interest, a ludicrously high exchange rate and a high rate of inflation. Each of those pressures on British industry is the result of the Government's narrow, dogmatic monetarist policy.
The cutback affects not only production but—and more seriously for the future—training and retraining programmes, and the number of apprenticeships on offer. Such facts are known throughout the North-West. Every survey from the North-West indicates that this bankers' Government are squeezing the lifeblood out of our industry. One respected North-West manufacturer, of international repute, told me that since 1978, and as a result of the Government's policies, his loss of competitiveness against his main Continental rivals was of the order of 37 per cent. Another complained of losing 30 per cent. of his trade to the Japanese in Third world markets. That is a direct result of Government policy.
Those are the industrial realities against which skilled men are operating. It is against that background of squeeze and uncertainty that, earlier this year, the workers of Boltons Superheaters and Pipe Works came to face the true nature of capitalism in the 1980s. Bolton's is a


long-established, century-old Stockport firm. Some two and a half years ago. it became part of the Yorkshire engineering group valled Fairbairn Lawson. Fair-bairn Lawson later had to face severe financial difficulties. However, no one has ever claimed that Bolton's was anything but a going concern. I understand that in April this year, there was a firm order book and the company was returning a profit of about 7 per cent. on working capital. That is no mean achievement in present circumstances. Nevertheless, because of the problems of the parent group, a receiver was called in on 1 May. In this case, it was a Mr. Mackey, of Ernst and Whinney, Chiswell Street, London. He was appointed by Barclays Bank. That brought Mr. Mackey's representative, Mr. Yeardsley, on to the scene. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Yeardsley. I am told, however, that on his first visit to the works, he arrived in an Alfa Romeo. On his second visit, he arrived in a "V" registration yellow Rolls-Royce. Perhaps the Minister thinks that that is of no consequence. To the men facing job losses, it was clear that, although this Government may not need skilled engineers, receivers are doing very nicely indeed.
From a variety of extremely reliable and honourable sources, I am told that from the beginning, the receiver's representative acted in an extremely highhanded, not to say dictatorial, way. A number of workers, including the works convener were dismissed immediately and reinstated only after intervention by the engineering union district secretary and a representative of the Engineering Employers Federation. It was made clear that, although the convener would be reinstated, the redundancies stood and that more would be required.
While the members of the work force were being educated in that aspect of industrial relations, the receiver carried out another little coup, which was scarcely designed to win the hearts and minds of the men for whom he was now responsible. Bolton's had had a small works pension fund with the Colonial and Mutual, which was in the process of being wound up. The insurance company had paid a cheque to Bolton's en bloc, and Bolton's had issued cheques to the pension fund members covering periods of

service of between four and 35 years. Our ever-assiduous receiver stopped those cheques. When they bounced, the fund members were told—in the words of one long-standing member of the pension fund—to take their place in the queue. Bouncing pension-fund cheques, instant dismissals, and a mood of general high-handedness caused a deputation from the work force to see me. The deputation presented the rather sad petition that I now show the Minister. It is the genuine result of shopfloor feeling. The petition said that the workers were
worried and disturbed about the recent happenings in our factory".
The petition asked me to
investigate and rectify any abuses that may have occurred.
As a result of the petition I wrote to the Secretary of State for Employment on 14 May. The key part of my letter stated:
I would be grateful if you could look at the present situation at Boltons Superheater and let me have your comments as to how the Receiver is carrying out his responsibilities.
In his reply the Under-Secretary of State made a statement which caused me anxiety. He said:
The conduct of a receivership is not under the control of any Government Department.
However, he gave me an assurance which I accepted. He said:
I understand that the Receiver is aiming to dispose of the Company as a going concern and that although some redundancies have been necessary, it is hoped to be able to save the rest of the jobs.
I do not imply that the Minister or his colleagues have tried to mislead me or my constituents. He must appreciate my anger and the bitterness of the work force when I tell him that last night four workers at Boltons were "keeping the place tidy" for the asset strippers to move in. Goodwill, order books and machinery have been sold. The work force has been dismissed and told in the most blatant way that they are the responsibility of the Government.
The managing director, Mr. E. G. Gray, was dismissed at a moment's notice. He was asked to hand in the keys of his company car. As one worker graphically put it, he was "sent home on a bus". As a result his farewell was by


letter to the local Stockport Express. A few quotes will give the flavour. He said:
During the past few years it has been considered unethical and socially unacceptable for companies to be purchased for asset stripping. Admittedly, a bank has the right to recover its debts but when it is making embarrassingly huge profits, is it right when the cost is to throw 150 people out of work? For myself, being given officially one hour's notice of termination, I had little opportunity to thank my colleagues and wish them every success in their efforts to find new jobs. I would like to do so through your columns.
Thus died Boltons Superheater. It was not a big or important company, but it had a loyal work force and a caring management. I wonder whether the Minister considers it to be death by natural causes or a case of murder. Was any real effort made to save this going concern? I understand that at least two offers were made but no effort was made to maintain the morale of management or men—quite the reverse. What was the basis of the assurances given to me by the Under-Secretary of State?
Given an irresponsible receiver, does the Minister think that sufficient protection is provided by section 99 of the Employment Protection Act 1975? When a firm is literally disappearing under one's feet, an appeal to an industrial tribunal is slow and cumbersome. The receiver is in a position to make offers which the workers cannot refuse, in true Mafia style. Is not a more sensitive and immediate protection required?
Is the Minister satisfied that receivers are not under the control of any Government Department? Is he convinced that when a receiver decides to wind up and asset-strip, there is sufficient legal protection to enforce observance of agreements and procedures with the trade unions and on behalf of employers' associations?
Finally, in terms of his ministerial responsibility, is the Minister satisfied that the taxpayer is sufficiently protected from receivers who seek to create circumstances where severance pay becomes a taxpayers' responsibility under the 1978 Act? I note the Minister's answer to my question yesterday. Frankly, it does not match the facts or attitude taken in this case. Does not the Minister agree that it would deter the asset stripper if workers had a claim on a proportion of the assets realised as a first priority?
I have one final point. I understand that Mr. Gray, the managing director who I have referred to, has written to Barclays Bank pointing out that the pension fund assets were only in the company account by an accident of timing, and that to treat the members of that pension fund as unsecured creditors is unworthy and immoral. I endorse that view.
I emphasise that what I have described is not a nineteenth century fantasy but a 1980s fact. I have quoted before to this House the warning of Sir Winston Churchill to an earlier Government, more than 50 years ago, not to make finance too proud or industry too low, but that is exactly what is happening in the industrial North-West. I feel bitter that assurances were not kept. This case reveals weaknesses in the law which should be strengthened. Most of all, it brings home to me and many of my hon. Friends that the old crude, insensitive capitalism is still there and that this Government are by their policies creating the climate in which it can flourish. Fear, uncertainty and high unemployment can, so the theory goes, bring even the most skilled and well-organised workers into line. If that is the theory on which the Government are working, I assure the Minister and his colleagues that they have misjudged the British worker in this as in so much else. The British people and British workers are judging their policies for what they are. The Government are giving the stamp of approval to the law of the jungle.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Lester): In spite of the lateness of the hour, I understand how seriously the hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. McNally) feels. Adjournment debates are read widely. I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman down the line of mafias and murders.
It may be helpful if I begin by giving the hon. Gentleman our background information about the company and the protection that exists for the workers. As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, Boltons Superheater and Pipe Works Limited is one of a group of companies, and is based at Adswood Road, Stockport, Cheshire. The company employs pipework engineers and manufactures complete steam raising plant, pipe work for power and industry plant, superheaters for all types


of boilers and other allied products. Its business was carried out in two divisions—pipe work and valve manufacture. The total work force numbered 152.
The company became insolvent, and on 22 April 1980 a receiver was appointed by one of the debenture holders.

Mr. McNally: Is the Minister referring to the Stockport company or the parent company? That is relevant to the workers concerned.

Mr. Lester: As far as, I am aware, I am referring to the Stockport company. The receiver was Mr. Mackey from the firm of Ernst and Whinney, 57 Chiswell Street, London E.C.I. Almost immediately the work force and unions were told of the situation and warned that redundancies might have to occur. Within the first two weeks 26 employees were made redundant. During the following months the remaining work force was made redundant, apart from eight employees who are being retained on a caretaker basis. Meanwhile the business continued, while the receiver made strenuous efforts to sell the company as a going concern. Several enterprises showed interest, but only one made a definite offer. Unfortunately, the offer was far below that which the receiver could reasonably consider and it became necessary to sell the pipe work division and the valve division separately.
The receiver succeeded in finding purchasers on this basis. The pipe work division was sold on 26 June and at least 20 of the employees were offered employment by the new owners. The valve division was sold on 7 July 1980 and about 15 employees were offered employment by the new owners. Of the remaining employees, 80 have registered for employment at the local jobcentre. The buildings and ground not already bought are already on the market' and an auction of the remaining plant and machinery is to take place on 28 August.
There is a statutory requirement to consult the trade unions on proposed redundancies. Under section 99 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 employers are required to hold consultations on impending redundancies with the recognised union for the category of workers to be made redundant. That applies even if only one person is involved. The consultation must be

carried out at the earliest opportunity, but in any event 30 days before the first dismissal is to take place, when 10 to 99 workers are to be made redundant at one establishment over a period of 30 days or less, and 90 days before the first dismissal is to take place when 100 or more are to be made redundant at one establishment over a period of 90 days or less.
The employer is required to give the union certain information, for example, a description of the employees to be made redundant, the method of selection, and so on, and to consider and reply to any representations made by the union to reduce the numbers involved or to mitigate the effects of the redundancy. If there are special circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable for the employer to meet those requirements fully, he must do all that he reasonably can to meet them.
Section 100 of the Act requires employers to notify the Secretary of State of impending redundancies involving 10 or more within the time scales that I have mentioned. Employers who do not comply with the notification can be penalised either by the Secretary of State withholding up to 10 per cent. of any redundancy rebate due or, on conviction by a magistrates' court, by a fine not exceeding £ 400.
It is the employer, in this instance a limited company, who must comply with the provisions of sections 99 and 100. The fact that, in the case of Boltons it was the receiver who initiated the dismissals does not alter that position: the company, on whose behalf the receiver acts, will remain liable to comply with the handling of redundancy provisions.
In this case, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State received notification from the company on 30 April of 152 redundancies. That notification did not comply with the requirements under section 100 of the 1975 Act. In an insolvency it is often necessary for an employer to act with great haste, and it is not possible for the full advance notification to be given to my Department. In the circumstances of this case, which was considered by my Department, it was felt inappropriate to impose any penalty by way of reduction of rebate.
I know from correspondence with the hon. Member that what he is concerned


about is the manner in which he alleges that the redundancies took place, but I understand that the receiver held consultations with the unions on the selection of the employees to be made redundant and the phasing of the redundancies. I gather that there was some disagreement over this and that the unions walked out of a meeting and picketed the premises.

Mr. McNally: The convener was the first.

Mr. Lester: He was reinstated after representations. However, the differences were resolved, and I understand that there were no further complaints from the unions. I am surprised that the hon. Member does not appear to have raised his complaints with the receiver or the company direct, since they would have been happy to have kept him informed of all developments and the steps being taken to minimise the effects of the redundancies.

Mr. McNally: The law states that this is a responsibility of the company, the receiver and the trade unions—not the Member. I had assurances from the Department of Employment and the receiver gave assurances to the trade unions. It is not for the local Member to become an amateur industrial relations officer. There must be an element of trust in these matters and I am angry because that trust has been betrayed.

Mr. Lester: Many of us who have been hon. Members for some time do not necessarily work by those rules. If a company is affected in our constituencies, we get involved, whether that is our right or not.
We have sympathy for a company such as this, the employees of which have been made redundant. As the hon. Gentleman said, the company has a history and a commitment. However, the conduct of receivership is not under the control of any Government Department. The procedure if one has complaints over receivership is to go to the head receiver. We have no knowledge of the unions wanting to make a complaint, and they have not made a complaint to the industrial tribunal, which they are entitled to do when they are not satisfied that the company has done all that it could do to meet its obligations on consultations.
If they want to do that and the union's complaint is upheld, the tribunal can make a protective award requiring the employer to pay the employees involved their normal week's pay for a specified period. This is the main safeguard against any high-handed actions on the part of an employer. Where a tribunal makes a protective award and the employer is unable to pay it by reason of insolvency, payment can be made, subject to statutory limits, out of the redundancy fund. I am not aware of any complaint having been brought by the relevant unions in this case.
Individual employees who are made redundant have other rights to safeguard their position. It might be helpful if I sketched them out. Even though a receiver has been appointed, the employees retain all the rights to which they are entitled under the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. These include the right to notice of dismissal or pay in lieu of notice. If the employer is insolvent, notice pay may be paid by my Department, against subject to statutory limits, out of the redundancy fund. Similarly, arrears of pay and holiday pay owed by an insolvent employer may be paid out of the fund.
If there is any question of unfair selection for redundancy—and this would arise only if some employees were made redundant and not others—the individuals concerned would have the right to make a complaint to an industrial tribunal of unfair dismissal provided they had 52 weeks' service and that the complaint was received within three months of the dismissal. It would be for the tribunal to judge whether the dismissal was fair in all the circumstances and to consider whether any depature from customary or agreed procedures are justified.
Individual employees who are made redundant are also, of course, entitled to redundancy payments from their employers, depending on their age and length of service. If the company is insolvent, then, once again, payments can be made direct from the redundancy fund. In this case, the first agreed claims were submitted to my Department on 9 May. Claims have been made for holiday and notice pay and also for redundancy payments. These are being dealt with in the usual way and I am not aware of any undue delay in implementing the


procedure for payment. Claims in respect of payments in lieu of notice cannot be processed until the completion of the relevant notice period, but I understand that more than 100 claims for holiday pay have so far been met.
It would not be proper for me to comment on the claims of individual employees. Nor is it my function to pass any judgment on the handling of certain redundancies, particularly when there is provision for an industrial tribunal to look into these matters. I shall of course be happy to give whatever assistance is in my power if the hon. Member wishes to write to me again on this matter, particularly on the question of the pension fund about which I have not heard previously.
On the wider question of unemployment in Stockport, I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about this further job loss in his constituency, which is already suffering from severe unemployment. The Government are very much aware of the financial and other problems facing firms at the present time. There is no doubt that the combination of a high exchange rate and continuing inflation makes it difficult for United Kingdom companies to compete in overseas markets, and high interest rates clearly add to these problems. The Government have never pretended that busnesses do not face a difficult period in the interval between the implementation of our counter inflation policies and their effects. As we bring about economies in Government spending and as our fiscal policies take effect, the financial pressures on firms will ease.
If there is any question of unfair selection of the cutback in apprenticeships. He may not have heard on Tuesday that through our training for skills programme, designed to deal with the whole question of apprenticeships in times of recession when companies unfortunately have cut back on the key factor of training the next generation of skilled people, we are supporting in the current year

23,500 apprenticeships, a similar figure to previous years. Because of the cutback and the fact that there has not been the intake by industry that should have occurred, the Government are financing a further 1,500 apprenticeships, announced on Tuesday, bringing the total to 25,000. These are targeted in areas, such as Stockport, of high unemployment where they will do the most good.
In spite of the gloomy picture that the hon. Gentleman has painted, all is not gloom and despair, as my colleagues have found when visiting the North-West. Expansions are taking place. New projects are being set up and new jobs are being created, although not at as fast a rate as we would like. Since this Government came to office, assistance worth £ 703,000 has been offered under section 7 of the Industry Act for 11 projects in Stockport involving a total estimated investment of some £ 19.5 million. Nearly 600 jobs were associated with these projects.
During the same period £ 226.000 was offered under section 8 of the Act for a further 28 projects involving a total estimated investment of about £ 906,000. I understand that work has now started on the Greyhound industrial estate, a development which, according to one press report, will eventually create up to 5,000 new jobs.
Nevertheless, I do not underestimate the severe unemployment problems facing the Stockport area. I am only too well aware of the effects of unemployment on those concerned and on their families. But the Government believe that it is vital to hold to our course, for inflation is the chief enemy of business growth and holds back the creation of new jobs which in the end will bring down unemployment in Stockport and elsewhere in the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Three o'clock am.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL

Division No. 426]
AYES
[7.18 pm


Adley, Robert
Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael


Alison, Michael
Eyre, Reginald
Lawrence, Ivan


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lawson, Nigel


Ancram, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lee, John


Arnold, Tom
Faith, Mrs Sheila
Le Marchant, Spencer


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Farr, John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Atkins, Robert (Preston North)
Fell, Anthony
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lloyd, lan (Havant & Waterloo)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Banks, Robert
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard


Beith, A. J.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Lyell, Nicholas


Bell, Sir Ronald
Forman, Nigel
McCrindle, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Macfarlane, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Fox, Marcus
MacGregor. John


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Best, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
McQuarrie, Albert


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Madel, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan
Major, John


Blackburn, John
Glyn, Dr Alan
Marland, Paul


Blaker, Peter
Goodhart, Phillip
Marlow, Tony


Body, Richard
Goodhew, Victor
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodlad, Alastair
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John
Mates, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)
Gow, Ian
Mather, Carol


Bowden, Andrew
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Maude, Rt Hon Angus


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Bradford, Rev. R.
Greenway, Harry
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grieve, Percy
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St Edmunds)
Mellor, David


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brittan, Leon
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Grist, Ian
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Brotherton, Michael
Grylls, Michael
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)
Gummer, John Selwyn
Miscampbell, Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moate, Roger


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hampson, Dr Keith
Molyneaux, James


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Hannam, John
Montgomery, Fergus


Buck, Antony
Haselhurst, Alan
Moore, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Morgan, Geraint


Burden, F. A.
Hawkins, Paul
Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)


Butler, Hon Adam
Hayhoe, Barney
Mudd, David


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Murphy, Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Heddle, John
Myles, david


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry
Neale, Gerard


Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neale, Gerard 


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Hicks, Robert
Needham, Richard


Channon, Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nelson, Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James
Neubert, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Newton, Tony


Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Normanton, Tom


Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)
Hooson, Tom
Nott, Rt Hon John


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Sir Walter
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Osborn, John


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Cope, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Corrie, John
Kurd, Hon Douglas
Parkinson, Cecil


Costain, A. P.
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Parris, Matthew


Cranborne, Viscount
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Critchley, Julian
Jessel, Toby
Patten, John (Oxford)


Crouch, David
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Pawsey, James


Dickens, Geoffrey
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Penhaligon, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Sir Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Peyton, Rt Hon John


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kershaw, Anthony
Pollock, Alexander


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kilfedder, James A.
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)


Durant, Tony
King, Rt Hon Tom
Prior, Rt Hon James


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill
Proctor, K. Harvey


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Lamont, Norman
Raison, Timothy


Eggar, Timothy
Lang, Ian
Rathbone, Tim


Elliott, Sir William
Langford-Holt, Sir John
flees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Rees-Davies, W. R.
Speller, Tony
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Renton, Tim
Spence, John
Viggers, Peter


Rhodes James, Robert
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley;


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Wakeham, John


Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Sproat, lain
Waldegrave, Hon William


Ridsdale, Julian
Squire, Robin
Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)


Rifkind, Malcolm
Stainton, Keith
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stanbrook, Ivor
Wall, Patrick


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Stanley, John
Walters, Dennis


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Stevens, Martin
Ward, John


Robinson, Peter (Befast East)
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Warren, Kenneth


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stewart, Allan (East Renfrewshire)
Watson, John


Ross. Wm. (Londonderry)
Stokes, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rossi, Hugh
Strading Thomas, J.
Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage


Rost, Peter
Tapsell, Peter
Wheeler, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Taylor, Teddy (Southend East)
Whitney, Raymond


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Tebbit, Norman
Wickenden, Keith


Scott, Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Wilkinson, John


Shelton, William (Streattham)
Thompson, Donald
Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Thorne. Neil (Ilford South)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge Br'hills)
Thornton, Malcolm
Younger, Rt Hon George


Shersby, Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)



Silvester, Fred
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexleyheath)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Skeet, T. H. H.
Trippier, David
Mr. David Waddington and


Smith, Dudley (War. and Leam'ton)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. Peter Brooke.

NOES


Abse, Leo
Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Adams, Allen
Dubs, Alfred
Janner, Hon Greville


Allaun, Frank
Duffy, A. E. P.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Alton, David
Dunnett, Jack
John, Brynmor


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alex
Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest
Eastham, Ken
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Ashton, Joe
Ellis, Raymond (NE Derbyshire)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lambie, David


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
English, Michael
Lamborn, Harry


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Ennals, Rt Hon David
Leadbitter, Ted


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Evans, John (Newton)
Lewis, Arthur (Newham North West)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Ewing, Harry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Faulds, Andrew
Litherland, Robert


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)
Field, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fitch, Alan
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fitt, Gerard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Flannery, Martin
McCartney, Hugh


Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McElhone, Frank


Buchan, Norman
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Forrester, John
McKelvey, William


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)
Foster, Derek
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell, Ian
Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Maclennan, Robert


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McNally, Thomas


Canavan, Dennis
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McWilliam, John


Cant, R. B.
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Magee, Bryan


Carter-Jones, Lewis
George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow.Shettles'n)


Cartwright, John
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Ginsburg, David
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Golding, John
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow, Springb'rn)


Cohen, Stanley
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Graham, Ted
Maxton, John


Cox, Tom (Wandsworth, Tooting)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M. (Glasgow, Maryhill)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael


Crowther, J. S.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mikardo, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Hardy, Peter
Millan, Rt. Hon Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)


Cunningham, George (Islington S)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)
Haynes, Frank
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)


Dalyell, Tarn
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Lianelli)
Heffer, Eric S.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)
Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Morton, George


Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)
Home Robertson, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Deakins, Eric
Homewood, William
Newens, Stanley


Dempsey, James
Hooley, Frank
Ogden, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Horam, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Huckfield, Les
O'Neill, Martin


Dobson, Frank
Hudson Davies, Ednyfed (Caerphilly)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Dormand, Jack
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Palmer, Arthur


Douglas, Dick
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Park, George

Parker, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Parry, Robert
Short, Mrs Renée
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Pavitt, Laurie
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Silkin.Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)


Prescott, John
Silverman, Julius
Watkins, David


Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)
Skinner, Dennis
Weetch, Ken


Race, Reg
Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)
Wellbeloved, James


Radice, Giles
Soley, Clive
Welsh, Michael


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)
Spearing, Nigel
White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)


Richardson, Jo
Stallard, A. W.
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald (W Isles)
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Stoddart, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Straw, Jack
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Robertson, George
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee East)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Winnick, David


Rodgers, Rt Hon William
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Woodall. Alec


Rooker, J. W.
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wright, Sheila


Roper, John
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Young, David (Bolton East)


Rowlands, Ted
Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)



Ryman, John
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Sandelson, Neville
Tilley, John
Mr. Joseph Dean and


Sever, John
Tinn, James
Mr. James Hamilton.


Sheerman, Barry
Torney, Tom